A perceptual advantage for social groups in interactive configurations
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
Humans have a long-standing evolutionary history of group belonging. Our visual system should thus be tuned to detect social groups, especially those in interactive or “core configurations,” where group members face each other. Past work shows that two individuals are detected more efficiently when they are facing toward (vs. away from) each other. Here we tested whether this facing advantage extends to small social groups of three, or triads. In three preregistered experiments, participants searched for a facing group (among non-facing ones) or a non-facing group (among facing ones). Facing groups were found faster than non-facing ones, demonstrating a perceptual advantage for groups in core configurations (Experiment 1). This advantage persisted in inverted displays, suggesting a role for cues to body orientation (Experiments 2 and 3). Human perception is thus well-tuned to detect not just prototypical dyadic interactions, but interactive configurations more generally, facilitating efficient processing of complex social information.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it