Executive cognitive functioning and the recognition of facial expressions of emotion in incarcerated violent offenders, non‐violent offenders, and controls
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence is a social problem that carries enormous costs; however, our understanding of its etiology is quite limited. A large body of research exists, which suggests a relationship between abnormalities of the frontal lobe and aggression; as a result, many researchers have implicated deficits in so-called "executive function" as an antecedent to aggressive behaviour. Another possibility is that violence may be related to problems interpreting facial expressions of emotion, a deficit associated with many forms of psychopathology, and an ability linked to the prefrontal cortex. The current study investigated performance on measures of executive function and on a facial-affect recognition task in 20 violent offenders, 20 non-violent offenders, and 20 controls. In support of our hypotheses, both offender groups performed significantly more poorly on measures of executive function relative to controls. In addition, violent offenders were significantly poorer on the facial-affect recognition task than either of the other two groups. Interestingly, scores on these measures were significantly correlated, with executive deficits associated with difficulties accurately interpreting facial affect. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of a broader understanding of violent behaviour.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it