The warmth of our regrets: Managing regret through physiological regulation and consumption
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
Abstract This research suggests that experiencing action regret induces a change in psychological and physical warmth, motivating individuals to ameliorate that change via interaction with objects that are perceived to be physically or psychologically opposite in temperature. Experiment 1 revealed individuals experiencing action regret felt more self‐conscious emotions, and subsequently preferred cold (versus hot) drinks. Experiment 2 replicated this effect and ruled out arousal as a possible alternative explanation. Experiment 3 furthered this link by demonstrating that those feeling more self‐conscious emotions felt warmer and subsequently preferred cold (versus hot) drinks. Finally, experiment 4 found that advertisements manipulated for temperature (e.g., cold climate) mitigated the psychological effects of action regret. We interpret the results of these four studies within the emerging field of embodied cognition, which argues that our understanding of emotional concepts is grounded in, and can be influenced by, physical experiences.
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 | 0.001 | 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