MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7083316977 · doi:10.15165/petetta-francesca_phd2023-06-13

The multi-layered structure of empathy: from theoretical to neuroscientific perspectives

2023· other· en· W7083316977 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueUnicam Scientific Publications (University of Camerino) · 2023
Typeother
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueWireless Sensor Networks for Data Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésReductionismNothingPhenomenonField (mathematics)NarrativeOrder (exchange)Reflexive pronounHuman scienceArgument (complex analysis)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Before beginning, three years ago, my PhD course at the University of Camerino, in the research group of Professor Roberto Ciccocioppo, I didn’t know anything about Neurosciences. In my mind, it was the field of reductionism, where every phenomenon is explained through the principle of “this is how it works”. But let me be clearer: before starting my PhD course, I had always been studying Philosophy. Of course, during my philosophical studies I had met, now and then, some neuroscientific contributions, but nothing that could give me solid basis for understanding the field. The breakthrough happened while attending a first level Master course in Narrative Medicine, Communication and Ethics of Care, right before applying for the PhD program. During those classes I could open myself to a more scientific approach and understand that the problem is not the reductionism. As Luca Grion stresses, indeed, 1 although an ontological reductionism is to be avoided in order not to miss the whole complexity and eccentricity of our experience, there is a healthy reductionism, 2 which is the methodological reductionism. To methodologically reduce the analysis to the mechanisms that inhabit the complexity is the duty and the vocation of the Science (and thus also Neurosciences). On the other hand, Philosophy, and Human Sciences in general, must take care of keeping together the complexity itself. Pavel Florenskij, the Russian philosopher I wrote about in my masters’ thesis, says that every discipline is a different language through which we approach reality. Given the high number of languages (that is of disciplines) we use to study the phenomena of reality, reality seems to us extremely fragmented. But it is only a perspectival error: reality is one, although methodologically reducible to many layers. Keeping this awareness, I began my PhD course with the intent of building my research activity on a multi-layered approach that could take into account different languages and establish a dialogue between them. So I started addressing and studying the topic of consciousness. It has been always fascinating to me, since without consciousness, I would not even be here, asking myself what it means to be conscious. As the months passed, I realized that what I loved about consciousness was exactly what made its study so complicated. I refer to the fact that the only way we can analyze consciousness, is through consciousness itself. This makes things really hard. So to escape this loop, I thought it would be better to dissect this complexity by focusing on a different phenomenon, however related to consciousness. And thus I met empathy, one of the most discussed topics in both philosophy and neuroscience. I decided, together with my supervisors, Professor Ciccocioppo and Professor Donatella Pagliacci from the University of Macerata, to elaborate a novel model to study empathy, building my research on a multi-disciplinary approach that keeps together both the theoretical and the experimental perspectives. In particular, I first focus my investigations on revisiting the traditional approaches on empathy, such as the aesthetic, the phenomenological and the anthropological ones. I then elaborate a theoretical paradigm to read empathy as a multi-layered phenomenon. It involves bodily, emotional and cognitive dimensions and leads to particular kind of experiential knowledge, through which the self can access, although in a non-original way, the emotional state of another self and also come to a better knowledge of itself. During the six months I spent in the research group of Georg Northoff, at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Center, in Ottawa (Canada), I developed the idea of self and empathy being highly intertwined. I test this hypothesis by performing an ALE meta- analysis on studies about empathy and comparing the results with an already published analysis , to look for overlapping brain regions between the empathic process and the self-processing. After that I analyze, from a neuroscientific point of view, the phenomenon of synchronization, that has been found to be at the basis of different inter-personal phenomena, among which empathy. This focus made me understand better the natural roots of the phenomenon I was addressing and, in general, the fact that we are nature. For this reason, I worked on the elaboration of an animal model of empathic-like behaviors that could help in the study of the molecular and biochemical mechanisms that underlie empathy. So in the fourth Chapter of this work, I propose a rodent paradigm to observe and evaluate intra-specific and inter-specific behaviors in response to different emotive states. Lastly, I analyze the case study of the public perception of laboratory animal testing, to warn against the biases and prejudices that can come from relying too much on what an unbalanced empathic experience could suggest. These are the things that you will find while reading my work. The things that you won’t find are all the ones that lie outside and yet surround my work. Without the latter, the former would never come to life.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Science ouverte
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,835
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,003
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0060,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,223
Écart entre enseignants0,211 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle