Consistency of Likability to Objects across Views and Time
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 object recognition is largely independent of conditions in which objects are viewed, although affective impressions to the objects may be influenced by viewing conditions. To what degree does viewing condition alter our subjective likability to objects? We tested the effects of viewpoint (frontal view and three-quarter view) and viewing durations (100, 500, and 1000 msec) on the subjective likability to 32 common objects (e.g., vehicles, furniture, stationery). Participants observed the object images on the computer display and rated their likability of the objects by 7-point Likert scale. The viewing conditions affected the likability; the mean rated likability was higher for three-quarter view than for frontal view, and higher for longer duration. However, the object-wise correlations of rated likability were fairly high and significant between the object orientations and among the durations, indicating that the rank order of the objects were largely consistent across the viewing conditions. Our findings suggest that the mechanism for determining likability to visual objects may be composed of two components; one is sensitive to viewing condition and another is robust against viewing condition.
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) | 0.003 | 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 it