Emotional Effect of Physical Aggression among Adults in the General Population in a Canadian Province
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emotional effect of personal involvement in physical aggression was examined in a random sample of 1,753 adults from Ontario, Canada, using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (response rate of 67%). Respondents reported a range of emotional responses from feeling good or justified to feeling angry, upset, terrified, disgusted, hurt, and embarrassed. Open-ended responses regarding emotional response were rated by the authors for 149 incidents of aggression, which yielded five categories: (1) positive impact 4%, (2) no feeling or no effect 31%, (3) mildly negative 20%, (4) moderately negative 28%, and (5) severely negative 17% (Kappa statistic of interrater agreement=.77). The substantial proportion of incidents involving positive or no emotional response suggests that a greater understanding of aggression among individuals can be gained by the development and application of a quantitative measure of emotional response that reflects the full range of emotions (positive and negative), using dimensions identified in this study such as feeling upset, fear, and anger.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".