MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386242484 · doi:10.1167/jov.23.9.4659

Religious labels and food preferences, but not country of origin, support opposing aftereffects on the basis of religion

2023· article· en· W4386242484 on OpenAlexaff
Maheen Shakil, M. D. Rutherford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyFace (sociological concept)Social psychologyChristianityIslamIdentity (music)Religious identitySociologyAestheticsReligiosityArtHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faces are visually represented as mental templates, and people have discrete templates for different social categories such as sex and race. These templates develop as an average all of the faces one has encountered (Leopold et al., 2001; Valentine et al., 2004) and are malleable: they can be updated when an individual views new faces (Hurlbert, 2001). Face templates can be experimentally manipulated to test whether opposing aftereffects can be created, suggesting that the faces of social groups are represented by discrete templates (Little et al., 2005, 2008). The current study used an opposing aftereffects paradigm to determine which cues lead individuals to view Christians and Muslims faces as different social categories. We tested whether 1) explicit religious labels, 2) food preferences, and 3) country of origin would support opposing aftereffects. Ninety-three participants were assigned to 1 of 3 conditions: while viewing face images, they heard audio that either 1) stated the character’s religious identity explicitly, 2) named a preferred food, or 3) named their country of origin. The countries and foods that were used in the audio descriptions were validated, and only those which were strongly associated with Christianity or Islam were chosen. Participants in all 3 conditions viewed 60% contracted Christian faces and 60% expanded Muslim faces during the training phase. Opposing aftereffects were found in the religious explicit (t(54) = 2.27, p = 0.03, Cohen’s d = 0.58) and food audio conditions (t(57) = 3.23, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.82), but not in the country audio condition (t(57) = 1.21, p = 0.23, Cohen’s d = 0.31). This suggests that explicit religious labels and food preferences create a socially meaningful distinction between religious groups, but country of origin does not. Among other inferences, this is evidence of an impact of social categorization on visual processing.

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)0.008
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.346
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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→