Does Background Type and Blurring Affect Performance Ratings in Video Interviews?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asynchronous video interviews (AVIs) have become increasingly popular as alternatives (or complements) to more traditional face-to-face interviews. Yet, AVI research has been largely focused on applicant reactions or behaviors, and we still know very little about what influences how applicants are rated. Importantly, because AVIs afford applicants the flexibility to record their responses from their homes, the background they choose could influence raters’ judgments. This study examines whether raters’ (N=276 Prolific respondents with prior hiring experience) initial impressions and final ratings differ if applicants record their AVIs from a home-office, a bedroom, or use background blurring settings, as well as the role played by response quality. Final interview scores were positively associated with both initial impressions and applicant response quality. Yet, background type (or the use of blurring) was not associated with initial impressions or final interview scores.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it