MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122412231 · doi:10.2466/pr0.105.2.509-521

Using the Revised Dictionary of Affect in Language to Quantify the Emotional Undertones of Samples of Natural Language

2009· article· en· W2122412231 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

VenuePsychological Reports · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotions and Moral Behavior
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Natural languageNatural (archaeology)PsychologyNormativeLinguisticsNatural language processingWord (group theory)Computer scienceDimension (graph theory)Artificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyCommunicationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whissell's Dictionary of Affect in Language, originally designed to quantify the Pleasantness and Activation of specifically emotional words, was revised to increase its applicability to samples of natural language. Word selection for the revision privileged natural language, and the matching rate of the Dictionary, which includes 8,742 words, was increased to 90%. Dictionary scores were available for 9 of every 10 words in most language samples. A third rated dimension (Imagery) was added, and normative scores were obtained for natural English. Evidence supports the reliability and validity of ratings. Two sample applications to very disparate instances of natural language are described. The revised Dictionary, which contains ratings for words characteristic of natural language, is a portable tool that can be applied in almost any situation involving language.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.337 · 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