MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164606890 · doi:10.1177/0145445512446741

Cue-Elicited Affect and Craving

2012· article· en· W2164606890 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

VenueBehavior Modification · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
KeywordsCravingPsychologyCue reactivityAffect (linguistics)Clinical psychologyAffect regulationConceptualizationReactivity (psychology)Developmental psychologyAddictionCognitionPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) commonly co-occurs with alcohol dependence (AD) and negatively affects treatment outcomes. Trauma-related negative affect enhances substance craving in laboratory cue-reactivity studies of AD individuals, but the role of positive affect has not been established. In this study, 108 AD treatment-seeking adults with current PTSD and AD were presented with four counterbalanced trials consisting of an audio cue (personalized trauma or neutral script) followed by a beverage cue (alcohol or water). Results revealed alcohol cues increased positive and negative affect, and positive affective responses explained significant incremental variance in self-reported craving and salivation, but only when cues were accompanied by neutral not trauma imagery. Ambivalent (high negative and positive) responses were associated with strongest craving. Findings advance the conceptualization of craving in individuals with PTSD-AD and highlight the importance of independently assessing positive and negative affective responses to cues in individuals with co-occurring PTSD-AD.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.250 · 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