MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998923406 · doi:10.1177/0301006619899574

Size Effects in the Recognition of Blurry Faces

2020· article· en· W2998923406 on OpenAlex
Seyed Morteza Mousavi, İpek Oruç

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceFacial recognition systemFace (sociological concept)Computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Scale (ratio)Image (mathematics)Computer visionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial frequencies critical for recognition of faces are scale-dependent. Progressively coarser features of the face are utilized at smaller sizes, despite the availability of finer features. Blur removes fine details in an image, disrupting the finer features utilized for recognition at large sizes. At smaller sizes, observers utilize coarser features, and thus, recognition may be less impacted by blur. This coupling between size and critical spatial frequencies allows us to predict a regime in which observers tolerate blur better with decreasing image sizes within a range of moderate face sizes. We tested recognition of famous faces in four conditions: large-intact, small-intact, large-blurry, and small-blurry. Observers showed high recognition performance in both intact conditions. Blur significantly disrupted recognition, yet accuracy was significantly and consistently higher in the small-blurry compared to the large-blurry condition. These results are suggestive of an inherent scale-dependent mechanism that, at certain sizes, negatively impacts recognition of blurry images.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.291
Teacher spread0.213 · 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