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
Critical to social human-robot interaction is a robot's emotional richness, expressed within the parameters of its physical display. While emotion arousal is straightforward to convey, human valence (positivity) evaluations are famously ambiguous, whether we are assessing other humans or a robot. Imagine someone breathing raggedly: are they nervous, or excited? To assess the premise that irregular breathing connotes low valence (emotion negativity), we implemented different levels of breathing variability and complexity in simple furry robots. We asked 10 participants to watch and feel the behaviors, rate their valence, and explain their impressions. While a quantitative exploration of new and previous data showed correlation between multi-scale entropy and valence, the rich narratives revealed by thematic analysis of participant explanations call into question whether a single motion can, alone, be unambiguously valenced. Based on this evidence that people perceive robots as having inner lives, we recommend ways to build up narrative contexts over multiple interactions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.208 | 0.053 |
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