MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941750362 · doi:10.1177/0956797619838762

A Facial-Action Imposter: How Head Tilt Influences Perceptions of Dominance From a Neutral Face

2019· article· en· W2941750362 on OpenAlexafffund
Zachary Witkower, Jessica L. Tracy

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyDominance (genetics)PerceptionFace perceptionHead (geology)Face (sociological concept)Action (physics)Cognitive psychologySocial psychologyTilt (camera)CommunicationNeuroscienceGeometryLinguisticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on face perception tends to focus on facial morphology and the activation of facial muscles while ignoring any impact of head position. We raise questions about this approach by demonstrating that head movements can dramatically shift the appearance of the face to shape social judgments without engaging facial musculature. In five studies (total N = 1,517), we found that when eye gaze was directed forward, tilting one’s head downward (compared with a neutral angle) increased perceptions of dominance, and this effect was due to the illusory appearance of lowered and V-shaped eyebrows caused by a downward head tilt. Tilting one’s head downward therefore functions as an action-unit imposter, creating the artificial appearance of a facial action unit that has a strong effect on social perception. Social judgments about faces are therefore driven not only by facial shape and musculature but also by movements in the face’s physical foundation: the head.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207