Own- and other-race face identity recognition in children: The effects of pose and feature composition.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a matching-to-sample task and manipulated facial pose and feature composition to examine the other-race effect (ORE) in face identity recognition between 5 and 10 years of age. Overall, the present findings provide a genuine measure of own- and other-race face identity recognition in children that is independent of photographic and image processing. The current study also confirms the presence of an ORE in children as young as 5 years of age using a recognition paradigm that is sensitive to their developing cognitive abilities. In addition, the present findings show that with age, increasing experience with familiar classes of own-race faces and further lack of experience with unfamiliar classes of other-race faces serves to maintain the ORE between 5 and 10 years of age rather than exacerbate the effect. All age groups also showed a differential effect of stimulus facial pose in their recognition of the internal regions of own- and other-race faces. Own-race inner faces were remembered best when three-quarter poses were used during familiarization and frontal poses were used during the recognition test. In contrast, other-race inner faces were remembered best when frontal poses were used during familiarization and three-quarter poses were used during the recognition test. Thus, children encode and/or retrieve own- and other-race faces from memory in qualitatively different ways.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".