MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328111274 · doi:10.1177/20416695231162580

Effects of forward mask duration variability on the temporal dynamics of brief facial expression categorization

2023· article· en· W4328111274 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin Chamberland, Charles A. Collin

Bibliographic record

Venuei-Perception · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCategorizationSadnessAffect (linguistics)DisgustSurprisePsychologyCognitive psychologyFacial expressionHappinessDuration (music)AngerTask (project management)Dynamics (music)Expression (computer science)Social psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Japanese and Caucasian Brief Affect Recognition Task (JACBART) has been proposed as a standardized method for measuring people's ability to accurately categorize briefly presented images of facial expressions. However, the factors that impact performance in this task are not entirely understood. The current study sought to explore the role of the forward mask's duration (i.e., fixed vs. variable) in brief affect categorization across expressions of the six basic emotions (i.e., anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise) and three presentation times (i.e., 17, 67, and 500 ms). Current findings do not demonstrate evidence that a variable duration forward mask negatively impacts brief affect categorization. However, efficiency and necessity thresholds were observed to vary across the expressions of emotion. Further exploration of the temporal dynamics of facial affect categorization will therefore require a consideration of these differences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuei-PerceptionSame topicDeception detection and forensic psychologyFrench-language works237,207