MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054178554 · doi:10.1037/a0024612

Impulsivity as a mediating mechanism between early-life adversity and addiction: Theoretical comment on Lovic et al. (2011).

2011· letter· en· W2054178554 on OpenAlexaff
Jay G. Hosking, Catharine A. Winstanley

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpulsivityNucleus accumbensPsychologyAddictionOrbitofrontal cortexDopaminergicPrefrontal cortexNeurosciencePsycINFOSubstance abuseDopamineDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryCognitionMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early-life adversity, impulsivity, and dopaminergic function have all been implicated in adult drug addiction. The article by Lovic, Keen, Fletcher, and Fleming in this issue further elucidates this relationship by demonstrating that early-life adversity can increase impulsivity and decrease behavioral flexibility in adulthood. Recent literature suggests that these results are likely due to structural and functional changes in regions such as the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and nucleus accumbens (NAc), as well as altered dopamine activity. Impulsivity and behavioral inflexibility can increase susceptibility to addiction, and in turn, chronic substance abuse can impair the neurocircuitry underlying behavioral inhibition. Thus, early-life adversity may act as an entry point into a feed-forward spiral of impulsivity and addiction via the dysfunction of regions such as the OFC, NAc, and mesolimbic dopamine. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0440.048
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral NeuroscienceSame topicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorFrench-language works237,207