Adolescents’ emotion system dynamics: Network-based analysis of physiological and emotional experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An individual's emotions system can be conceived of as a synchronized, coordinated, and/or emergent combination of physiology, experience, and behavioral components. Together, the interplay among these components produce emotional experiences through coordinated excitatory positive feedback (i.e., the mutual amplification of emotion concordance) and/or inhibitory negative feedback (i.e., the damping of emotion regulation) processes. Different system configurations produce differential psychophysiological reactivity profiles, and by implication, differential moment-to-moment emotional experience and long-term development. Applying dynamic systems models to second-by-second psychophysiological and experience time-series data collected from 130 adolescents (age 12.0 to 16.7 years) completing a social stress-inducing speech task, we describe the configuration of adolescents' emotion systems, and examine how differences in the dynamic outputs of those systems (psychophysiological reactivity profile) are related to individual differences in trait anxiety. We found substantial heterogeneity in the coordination patterns of these adolescents. Some individuals' emotion systems were characterized by negative feedback loops (emotion regulation processes), many by unidirectionally connected or independent components, and a few by positive feedback loops (emotion concordance). The reactivity dynamics of respiratory sinus arrhythmia were related to adolescents' level of trait anxiety. Results highlight how dynamic systems models may contribute to our understanding of interindividual and developmental differences. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".