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
Abstract The interplay between feeling and thinking, affect and cognition, has been a subject of scholarly discussion and spirited debate since antiquity. Within the past 25 years, the affect/cognition interface has also emerged as one of the most active and rapidly developing areas within psychological science. Two phenomena that have attracted much modern interest are mood congruence—the observation that a given affect state or mood promotes the processing of information that possesses a similar affective tone or valence, and mood‐dependence—the observation that information encoded in a particular mood is most retrievable in that mood, irrespective of the information's affective valence. This chapter examines the history and current status of research on mood congruence and mood dependence with a view to clarifying what is known about each of these phenomena, and why they are both worth knowing about. Particular consideration is given to the role of different information‐processing strategies in the occurrence of mood‐congruent and mood‐dependent effects, and to the way these effects may materialize in realistic everyday situations or clinical contexts.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 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