MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Face Adaptation and Attractiveness Aftereffects in 8-Year-Olds and Adults

2009· article· en· W2164350486 on OpenAlexaff
Gizelle Anzures, Catherine J. Mondloch, Christine L. Lackner

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityBrock UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAdaptation (eye)AttractivenessDevelopmental psychologyPhysical attractivenessCognitive psychologyFace (sociological concept)PsychoanalysisNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel method was used to investigate developmental changes in face processing: attractiveness aftereffects. Consistent with the norm-based coding model, viewing consistently distorted faces shifts adults' attractiveness preferences toward the adapting stimuli. Thus, adults' attractiveness judgments are influenced by a continuously updated face prototype. To investigate the development of this process, a novel method was developed for 8-year-olds. After reading a storybook composed of faces with either compressed or expanded features, 8-year-olds' ratings of faces distorted in the direction of the adapting stimuli increased. Nonetheless, they required larger distortions than adults to rate undistorted faces as most attractive preadaptation. Thus, although 8-year-olds' attractiveness preferences are influenced by a continuously updated prototype, their face space is less refined than that of adults.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations62
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207