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

Darwin and emotion expression.

2009· article· en· W2078349122 on OpenAlexaff
Ursula Heß, Pascal Thibault

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.019
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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

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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations161
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican PsychologistSame topicEmotions and Moral BehaviorFrench-language works237,207