MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108743190 · doi:10.1068/p6963

Relative Influences of Lightness and Facial Morphology on Perceived Race

2011· article· en· W2108743190 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversity of VictoriaUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLightnessPerceptionPsychologyIllusionContrast (vision)CounterintuitiveRace (biology)Cognitive psychologyFace perceptionSocial psychologyTone (literature)MorphingFace (sociological concept)Optical illusionCommunicationLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a recent study (Brooks and Gwinn, 2010 Perception 39 1142-1145), the lightness contrast illusion was employed to study the influences of skin tone and facial morphology on race perception. The findings were rather counterintuitive: they suggested that skin tone does not play a major role in racial categorisation. To investigate this further, we used a parametric paradigm including five lightness levels, five morphing levels, and two face orientations. In accordance with Brooks and Gwinn, we found that race categorisation of African-American and Caucasian faces by Caucasian participants relied mainly on morphological cues. However, the relative influence of lightness increased when morphological information was ambiguous and when the faces were upside down. Overall, the results point to a flexible multicue-based mechanism underlying race perception.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it