The Examination of Emotional Facial Expressions Within Parent–Child and Sibling Interactive Contexts: A Systematic Review
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
This work constitutes a systematic review of the empirical literature about emotional facial expressions displayed in the context of family interaction. Searches of electronic databases from January 1990 until December 2016 generated close to 4400 articles, of which only 26 met the inclusion criteria. Evidence indicate that affective expressions were mostly examined through laboratory and naturalistic observations, within a wide range of interactive contexts in which mother–child dyads significantly outnumbered father–child dyads. Moreover, dyadic partners were found to match each others’ displays and positive and neutral facial expressions proving more frequent than negative facial expressions. Finally, researchers observed some developmental and gender differences regarding the frequency, intensity, and category of emotional displays and identified certain links among facial expression behavior, family relations, personal adjustment, and peer-related social competence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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