MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310950374 · doi:10.1111/bjop.12619

We need to move beyond rating scales, white faces and adult perceivers: Invited Commentary on Sutherland & Young (2022), understanding trait impressions from faces

2022· article· en· W4310950374 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine J. Mondloch, Anita C. Twele, Sophia M. Thierry

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTraitPerspective (graphical)White (mutation)Cognitive psychologyImpression formationSocial psychologySocial perceptionDevelopmental psychologyPerceptionNeuroscienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sutherland and Young's perspective is a timely and rigorous examination of trait impressions based on facial cues. We propose three strtegies to further advance the field: incorporating natural language processing, including diverse facial stimuli, and re-interpreting developmental data.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.017
Scholarly communication0.0070.017
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0490.083
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of PsychologySame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207