Nonverbal Leadership in Joint Full-Body Improvisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we investigate nonverbal leadership and address two research questions: 1) is it possible to perceive leadership from nonverbal cues in an unstructured joint full-body activity with no designated leader? 2) what are its nonverbal indicators? To address these questions, we propose eight cues of nonverbal leadership and conduct a two-step validation study on a novel dataset (video, MoCap) of dance improvisation. To explore various leadership strategies, we introduce constraints on how dancers communicate by manipulating their shared sensory channels. In the first stage, 27 persons carried out continuous annotation of leadership in the recorded videos; in the second stage, 92 persons watched 25 short segments indicating who the leader was and reported perceived leadership cues. The results indicate 1) a high consensus among observers regarding nonverbal leadership, but only for certain video segments, and 2) that five leadership cues were frequently observed in our dataset. In the final part, we explore the feasibility of automatically detecting nonverbal leadership using hand-crafted cues and standard machine learning techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".