MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171614595 · doi:10.1068/p5341

A Haptic Face-Inversion Effect

2004· article· en· W2171614595 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 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaptic technologyInversion (geology)Stimulus (psychology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionFace (sociological concept)PsychologyCognitive psychologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined whether a face-inversion effect occurs when participants explore faces by touch. We used a haptic version of the inversion paradigm with 3-D clay facemasks and non-face control objects (teapots) moulded from real objects. Young, neurologically intact, blindfolded participants performed a temporally unconstrained haptic same/different task in each of four stimulus conditions: upright facemasks, inverted facemasks, upright teapots, and inverted teapots. There was a significant inversion effect for faces in terms of accuracy, but none for teapots. The results are considered in terms of the consequences of sequential manual exploration for haptic face processing.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
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)0.0020.012

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.253 · 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