Retaining international students : identifying the needs of international students attending Memorial University of Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans communicate internal states through complex facial movements shaped by biological and evolutionary constraints. Although real-life social interactions are flooded with dynamic signals, current knowledge on facial expression recognition mainly arises from studies using static face images. This experimental bias might stem from previous studies consistently reporting that young adults minimally benefit from the richer dynamic over static information, whereas children, the elderly, and clinical populations very strongly do (Richoz, Jack, Garrod, Schyns, & Caldara, 2015, Richoz, Jack, Garrod, Schyns, & Caldara, 2018b). These observations point to a near-optimal facial expression decoding system in young adults, almost insensitive to the advantage of dynamic over static cues. Surprisingly, no study has yet tested the idea that such evidence might be rooted in a ceiling effect. To this aim, we asked 70 healthy young adults to perform static and dynamic facial expression recognition of the six basic expressions while parametrically and randomly varying the low-level normalized phase and contrast signal (0%-100%) of the faces. As predicted, when 100% face signals were presented, static and dynamic expressions were recognized with equal efficiency with the exception of those with the most informative dynamics (i.e., happiness and surprise). However, when less signal was available, dynamic expressions were all better recognized than their static counterpart (peaking at ∼20%). Our data show that facial movements increase our ability to efficiently identify emotional states of others under the suboptimal visual conditions that can occur in everyday life. Dynamic signals are more effective and sensitive than static ones for decoding all facial expressions of emotion for all human observers.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".