MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116117639 · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.03.004

The face of an angel: Effect of exposure to details of moral behavior on facial recognition memory.

2013· article· en· W2116117639 on OpenAlexafffund
Alysha Baker, Leanne ten Brinke, Stephen Porter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyTrustworthinessMoralitySocial psychologyFace (sociological concept)Face perceptionPerceptionCognitive psychologyMoral behaviorFacial expressionCommunicationMoral disengagementNeuroscienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

a b s t r a c t The Dangerous Decisions Theory (DDT; Porter & ten Brinke, 2009) posits that instantaneous perceptions of trustworthiness based on a stranger's face influence the manner in which ensuing information about the target is processed. This study tested a bi-directional DDT model, proposing that information concern- ing a target's moral behavior could distort eyewitness memory for the individual's facial trustworthiness. Participants (N = 141) viewed a target individual's face (previously rated as appearing neutral on trust- worthiness) and then were exposed to one of the three vignettes describing the target's behavior (either immoral, morally neutral, or altruistic). Following a delay, observers were asked to identify the target individual on a facial morph video (continuously ranging in levels of perceived trustworthiness). Results indicated that behavioral information varying in morality influenced facial recognition memory; specifi- cally, faces were recalled as having less trustworthy features following a disclosure of immoral/criminal behavior.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Research in Memory and CognitionSame topicDeception detection and forensic psychologyFrench-language works237,207