MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174227271 · doi:10.4324/9781410603494-123

Faces are Different Than Words: Evidence from Associative Priming Studies

2020· book-chapter· en· W3174227271 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAssociative propertyPriming (agriculture)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyMathematicsBiologyPure mathematicsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Associative memory for familiar faces was investigated in two experiments. Pairs of familiar faces were presented for deep or shallow encoding; memory for these pairs was tested by presenting old-intact pairs, old-recombined pairs, and pairs consisting of one or two new faces. In Experiment 1, pairs consisted of two different individuals whereas in Experiment 2, pairs consisted of different views of the same individual. In both experiments, explicit recognition was best for old-intact pairs under deep encoding conditions. No associative priming effects were obtained in either experiment despite using a simultaneous familiarity-judgment task, similar to one that has produced associative priming effects with words (e.g., Goshen-Gottstein & Moscovitch, 1995a).It is proposed that the different associative priming effects obtained with the two types of stimuli may arise from differences in the modular perceptual representation systems for faces and words.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.429
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.019 · 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