MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068230779 · doi:10.1159/000287867

A Test to Measure the Awareness and Expression of Anger

2010· article· en· W2068230779 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy and Psychosomatics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Aesthetics, and Perception
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngerPsychologyExpression (computer science)FeelingClinical psychologyPsychometricsTest (biology)Expressed emotionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this project was to develop a reliable, objective and practical tool with which the awareness and expression of anger could be investigated. This paper gives a description of the Awareness and Expression of Anger Indicator (AEAI). The AEAI is a short and easy to use test. It provides a new objective assessment instrument of value in cases where deficits in affective processes, particularly anger, are suspected. 30 medical patients were tested with the AEAI. The investigators report a high inter-rater reliability in scoring the test. Four distinct response patterns emerged. Also, when confronted with the same anger-provoking stimulus, subjects responded significantly differently with respect to whether or not they felt angry, depending on the type of question. Traditional inducing questions, e.g.: Would you feel angry?, produced significantly more affirmative responses (reports of feeling angry) than non-inducing questions, e.g.: How would you feel? The contribution of the AEAI to chronic pain work is discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.242 · 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