Social motivation in individuals with isolated cleft lip and palate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social isolation is common among individuals with isolated cleft lip and palate (ICLP), but the available data on why this may be are mixed. We present a novel theory relating to reduced social motivation in ICLP, called the social abulia hypothesis. Based on this hypothesis, we predicted that reduced social motivation would lead to reduced responsiveness to negative social feedback, in terms of both explicit responses and noncontrolled, psychophysiological responses. Twenty males with ICLP and 20 normal comparison males between 13 and 25 years old participated in the study. Social motivation was examined by measuring participants' response to negative social feedback (social exclusion). Additionally, psychophysiological reactivity to positive and negative social stimuli was measured. In order to rule out other potential contributors to social isolation, we tested basic social perception, emotion recognition, and social anxiety. In line with the social abulia hypothesis, we show that negative social feedback had less of an effect on males with ICLP than on healthy male peers, which was evident in explicit responses and noncontrolled, psychophysiological responses to negative social feedback. Our results could not be attributed to problems in social perception, a lack of understanding facial expressions, or increased social anxiety, as groups did not differ on these constructs. This study suggests that current views on social isolation in ICLP may need to be reconsidered to include the possibility that isolation in this population may be the direct result of reduced social motivation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".