MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004857018 · doi:10.3109/10673229.2012.747798

Toward a Definition of Affective Instability

2012· review· en· W2004857018 on OpenAlexaff
Suzane Renaud, Camillo Zacchia

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard Review of Psychiatry · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysfunctional familyPsychologyContext (archaeology)Affect (linguistics)PsychopathologyMoodAffective scienceTraitCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapistClinical psychologyEmotion classification

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Affective instability is a psychophysiological symptom observed in some psychopathologies. It is a complex construct that encompasses (1) primary emotions, or affects, and secondary emotions, with each category having its own characteristics, amplitude, and duration, (2) rapid shifting from neutral or valenced affect to intense affect, and (3) dysfunctional modulation of emotions. Affective instability is often confused with mood lability, as in bipolar disorders, as well as with other terms. To clarify the concept, we searched databases for the term affective instability and read related articles on the topic. In this article we situate the term within the current affective nomenclature and human emotional experience, explore its psychophysiological features, and place it within the context of psychopathology. We explain why the term can potentially be confused with mood pathology and then define affective instability as an inherited temperamental trait modulated by developmental experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarvard Review of PsychiatrySame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207