MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167289315 · doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.207

The timing of appraisals.

2007· article· en· W2167289315 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

VenueEmotion · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotions and Moral Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive psychologyFacial expressionContext (archaeology)Process (computing)Computer scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The appraisal process consists of the subjective evaluation that occurs during an individual's encounter with significant events in the environment, determining the nature of the emotional reaction and experience. Placed in the context of appraisal theories of emotion-elicitation and differentiation, the aim of the present research was to test empirically the hypothesis that the intrinsic pleasantness evaluation occurs before the goal conduciveness evaluation. In two studies, intrinsically pleasant and unpleasant images were used to manipulate pleasantness, and a specific event in a Pacman-type videogame was used to manipulate goal conduciveness. Facial EMG was used to measure facial reactions to each evaluation. As predicted, facial reactions to the intrinsic pleasantness manipulation were faster than facial reactions to the goal conduciveness manipulation. These results provide good empirical support for the sequential nature of the appraisal process.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.332 · 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