Range- and domain-specific exaggeration of facial speech
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is it possible to exaggerate the different ways in which people talk, just as we can caricature their faces? In this paper, we exaggerate animated facial movement to investigate how the emotional manner of speech is conveyed. Range-specific exaggerations selectively emphasized emotional manner whereas domain-specific exaggerations of differences in duration did not. Range-specific exaggeration relative to a time-locked average was more effective than absolute exaggeration of differences from the static, neutral face, despite smaller absolute differences in movement. Thus, exaggeration is most effective when the average used captures shared properties, allowing task-relevant differences to be selectively amplified. Playing the stimuli backwards showed that the effects of exaggeration were temporally reversible, although emotion-consistent ratings for stimuli played forwards were higher overall. Comparison with silent video showed that these stimuli also conveyed the intended emotional manner, that the relative rating of animations depends on the emotion, and that exaggerated animations were always rated at least as highly as video. Explanations in terms of key frame encoding and muscle-based models of facial movement are considered, as are possible methods for capturing timing-based cues.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it