The Reading the Mind in the Eyes test: validation of a French version and exploration of cultural variations in a multi-ethnic city
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The first aim of our study was to validate the French version of the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test, a theory of mind test. The second aim was to test whether cultural differences modulate performance on this test. METHODS: A total of 109 participants completed the original English version and 97 participants completed the French version. Another group of 30 participants completed the French version twice, one week apart. RESULTS: We report a similar overall distribution of scores in both versions and no differences in the mean scores between them. However, 2 items in the French version did not collect a majority of responses, which differed from the results of the English version. Test-retest showed good stability of the French version. As expected, participants who do not speak French or English at home, and those born in Asia, performed worse than North American participants, and those who speak English or French at home. CONCLUSIONS: We report a French version with acceptable validity and good stability. The cultural differences observed support the idea that Asian culture does not use theory of mind to explain people's behaviours as much as North American people do.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".