MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2751442791 · doi:10.1167/17.10.302

THREAT - A database of line-drawn scenes to study threat perception

2017· article· en· W2751442791 on OpenAlexaff
Jasmine Boshyan, Nicole Betz, Lisa Feldman Barrett, David De Vito, M. Fenske, Reginald B. Adams, Kestutis Kveraga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmPerceptionSet (abstract data type)CLARITYPsychologyAgency (philosophy)Affect (linguistics)Social psychologyComputer scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient extraction of threat information from scene images is a remarkable feat of our visual system, but little is known about how it is accomplished. To facilitate studies of threat perception with well-controlled scene images, we created a set comprising 500 hand-traced line drawings of photographic visual scenes depicting various dimensions of threat. We used color-photo scene images previously reported in Kveraga et al. (2015) depicting direct threat, indirect threat, threat aftermath, and low threat scenes. Sixty participants were randomly assigned to rate all 500 scenes answering one of three questions: 1) How much harm might you be about to suffer in this scene if this was your view of the scene?; 2) How much harm might someone (not you) be about to suffer in this scene?; 3) How much harm might someone (not you) have already suffered in this scene?. Another 134 participants were randomly assigned to rate the images on various other threat dimensions. The mean ratings on these threat dimensions were submitted to a factor analysis, which resulted in three distinct factors including Affect (comprised of perceived emotional intensity, physical and psychological harm, and affect), Proximity (comprised of perceived threat clarity, its proximity in space and time, and degree of motion), and Agency (comprised of perceived human and animal agency, and whether inanimate objects present in the scene could be used as a potential weapon). Mean ratings on three harm questions and three factors were then submitted to cluster analyses, which grouped images into six distinct categories. This unique set of images, accompanied by ratings assessing multiple dimensions of threat and their clusters, is well suited for investigating research questions on emotion regulation and threat perception in neurotypical and clinical populations. Information on using it can be found at http://www.kveragalab.org/stimuli.html. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2017

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment→French-language works237,207→