Distance, Gaze and the Intimacy Equilibrium Model in Audio/Video-Mediated and Face-to-Face Dyads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experiment, from 1976 but until now unpublished, focused on the Argyle-Dean Intimacy Equilibrium Model, to consider gaze and social distance in face-to-face and audio/video-mediated dyads. It was found that, during audio/video-mediated interaction, communicators did not experience the anticipated degree of interpersonal remoteness or separation. What was expected to act as a technological barrier appeared to affect social influence but not interpersonal or informational communication. Under audio/video-mediated (teleconference) conditions, potential negative consequences of excessive intimacy (especially interpersonal assertiveness or dominance) appeared less salient, while certain positive effects remained unchanged. Consequently, subjects in the audio/video-mediated conditions liked each other to a greater degree, enjoyed the experiment to a greater extent, and perceived greater "closeness" than did subjects in face-to-face conditions. The levels of intra-dyadic gaze, which were significantly higher in the audio/video-mediated dyads, may have led to increased perceived intimacy between communicators.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".