The McGill Face Database: Validation and Insights Into the Recognition of Facial Expressions of Complex Mental States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current databases of facial expressions represent only a small subset of expressions, usually the basic emotions (fear, disgust, surprise, happiness, sadness, and anger). To overcome these limitations, we introduce a database of pictures of facial expressions reflecting the richness of mental states. A total of 93 expressions of mental states were interpreted by two professional actors, and high-quality pictures were taken under controlled conditions in front and side view. The database was validated in two experiments. First, a four-alternative forced-choice paradigm was employed to test the ability to select a term associated with each expression. Second, the task was to locate each face within a 2-D space of valence and arousal. Results from both experiments demonstrate that subjects can reliably recognize a great diversity of emotional states from facial expressions. While subjects’ performance was better for front view images, the advantage over the side view was not dramatic. This is the first demonstration of the high degree of accuracy human viewers exhibit when identifying complex mental states from only partially visible facial features. The McGill Face Database provides a wide range of facial expressions that can be linked to mental state terms and can be accurately characterized in terms of arousal and valence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".