MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804887358 · doi:10.1163/15685373-12340024

Fan and Non-Fan Recollection of Faces in Fandom-Related Art and Costumes

2018· article· en· W2804887358 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Reysen, Courtney N. Plante, Sharon E. Roberts, Kathleen C. Gerbasi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognition and Culture · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFandomRecallFace (sociological concept)PsychologyRelation (database)ArtAestheticsVisual artsCognitive psychologySociologyComputer scienceLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We compared face recognition of humans and fandom-themed characters (art and costumes) between a sample of furries (fans of anthropomorphic animal art) and non-furries. Participants viewed images that included humans, drawn anthropomorphic animals, and anthropomorphic animal costumes, and were later tested on their ability to recognize faces from a subset of the viewed images. While furries and non-furries did not differ in their recollection of human faces, furries showed significantly better memory for faces in furry-themed artwork and costumes. The results are discussed in relation to own-group bias in face recognition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognition and CultureSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207