Hey Baby, what's “up”? One- and 3-Month-Olds Experience Faces Primarily Upright but Non-Upright Faces Offer the Best Views
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
Experience has been theorized to shape how we process faces. Frequent face types are better discriminated and processed using expert-level holistic strategies while less frequent types are less well discriminated and processed using less mature featural strategies. Although experience is probably influencing the development of face processing, it is unclear what aspects of experience are most influential. The current study utilized infant-perspective head-mounted cameras to capture infants' daily lives at 1 and 3 months of age to measure the perceptual qualities of frequent and infrequent face types. We examined experience with upright (i.e., frequently experienced) and inverted (i.e., infrequently experienced) faces. A large majority (88%) of all face exposure was to upright faces. Most faces, regardless of orientation, were viewed near to the infant, alone in the field of view, and in a frontal viewpoint (i.e., an "ideal view"). Although they were less frequent than upright faces, proportionally more non-upright faces were viewed in an "ideal view". At this young age, nearly all faces, even non-upright faces, are seen in ways that facilitate 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it