MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078349122 · doi:10.1037/a0013386

Darwin and emotion expression.

2009· article· en· W2078349122 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

VenueAmerican Psychologist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotions and Moral Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDarwin (ADL)Expression (computer science)Universality (dynamical systems)TRACE (psycholinguistics)EpistemologyArgument (complex analysis)PsychologyFocus (optics)Function (biology)Emotion classificationCognitive scienceCognitive psychologyPhilosophyComputer scienceLinguisticsBiologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, Charles Darwin (1872/1965) defended the argument that emotion expressions are evolved and adaptive (at least at some point in the past) and serve an important communicative function. The ideas he developed in his book had an important impact on the field and spawned rich domains of inquiry. This article presents Darwin's three principles in this area and then discusses some of the research topics that developed out of his theoretical vision. In particular, the focus is on five issues--(a) the question of what emotion expressions express, (b) the notion of basic emotions, (c) the universality of emotion expressions, (d) the question of emotion prototypes, and (e) the issue of animal emotions--all of which trace their roots to Darwin's discussion of his first two principles.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.347 · 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