What Does It Mean to Measure a Smile? Assigning numerical values to emotions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article looks at the implications of emotion recognition, zooming in on the specific case of the care robot Pepper introduced at a hospital in Toronto. Here, emotion recognition comes with the promise of equipping robots with a less tangible, more emotive set of skills – from companionship to encouragement. Through close analysis of a variety of materials related to emotion detection software – iMotions – we look into two aspects of the technology. First, we investigate the how of emotion detection: what does it mean to detect emotions in practice? Second, we reflect on the question of whose emotions are measured, and what the use of care robots can say about the norms and values shaping care practices today. We argue that care robots and emotion detection can be understood as part of a fragmentation of care work: a process in which care is increasingly being understood as a series of discrete tasks rather than as holistic practice. Finally, we draw attention to the multitude of actors whose needs are addressed by Pepper, even while it is being imagined as a care provider for patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".