Orientation-Specific Adaptation on Face Recognition
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
Human observers are more sensitive to faces than any other visual stimulus. For decades, researchers have been interested in determining the visual information contained within faces that make them “special”. Recent evidence suggests that the most important information in faces for recognition is contained within horizontally oriented frequency bands of the face image (Dakin & Watt, 2009), which suggests that a disproportionate amount of information processing comes from mechanisms that are horizontally tuned. If this is true, then adapting those mechanisms in an orientation-specific manner should influence our ability to process faces. In this research, we will evaluate whether or not orientation-specific adaptation influences face recognition. If face processing heavily depends upon horizontal information, then selectively adapting those mechanisms should reduce observers’ ability to recognize faces. The same effect should not be observed with vertical adaptation. Overall, these results will provide insights into the role that low-level orientation information plays in facial recognition. Discipline: Psychology Honours Faculty Mentor: Dr. Nicole Anderson
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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