Dimensional models of core affect: a quantitative comparison by means of structural equation modeling
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Simulation or modelingConsensus signal: Simulation or modeling
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.517
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.999
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.146 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
The present article compares dimensional models of affect with each other. The article focuses on the pleasure–arousal model, the energetic and tense arousal model, and a three-dimensional model with separate pleasure–displeasure, awake–tiredness, and tension–relaxation dimensions. The results show that the three-dimensional model cannot be reduced to a two-dimensional model. Problems of the two-dimensional models' reductionism are discussed. We conclude that a three-dimensional description of affect is necessary. However, the three-dimensional model is not sufficient to account for all aspects of the structure of affect. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
The record
- Venue
- European Journal of Personality
- Topic
- Mental Health Research Topics
- Field
- Psychology
- Canadian institutions
- University of Toronto
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Keywords
- Affect (linguistics)PleasurePsychologyStructural equation modelingArousalReductionismDimensional modelingCognitive psychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceMathematicsEpistemologyStatisticsCommunicationPhilosophyPsychotherapist
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes