Морфометрическая характеристика стенки сердца плодов овец
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
A growing body of literature documents how exposure to another person's fear-related body odorants can increase one's own anxiety and interfere with processing of social information, such as facial expression and impression formation. Building on these results, we aimed to 1) test the hypothesis that exposure to fear-related odorant would affect impression formation through fear contagion and 2) verify whether these effects can be observed in an ecologically valid (i.e., virtual) environment. We proposed that exposure to fear-related odorant would cause receivers to feel more anxious, which in turn would lead them to report less trust toward an unknown virtual character. This study had 2 distinct phases. First, we collected perspiration odorants from the armpits of 12 male senders (i.e., the source of the odorant) during the viewing of either fear or joy inducing film clips. In the second phase, 53 women receivers were exposed to either a fear, joy, or neutral odorant (i.e., between-subjects design) by breathing through a gauze attached to a disposable respirator mask while immersed in a virtual bar. As expected, receivers exposed to fear odorants felt significantly more stressed. Mediation analysis also revealed an indirect effect of exposure on trust through anxiety. More specifically, the more anxious the receiver felt, the less she trusted the virtual character. Our results show for the first time that the impact of exposure to fear-related body odorants on negative interpersonal impression formation is mediated by the anxiety induced in the receiver.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
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