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
The role of peripheral physiology in the experience of emotion has been debated since the 19th century following the seminal proposal by William James that somatic responses to stimuli determine subjective emotion. Subsequent views have integrated the forebrain's ability to initiate, represent and simulate such physiological events. Modern affective neuroscience envisions an interacting network of "bottom-up" and "top-down" signaling in which the peripheral (PNS) and central nervous systems both receive and generate the experience of emotion. "Feelings" serves as a term for the perception of these physical changes whether emanating from actual somatic events or from the brain's representation of such. "Interoception" has come to represent the brain's receipt and representation of these actual and "virtual" somatic changes that may or may not enter conscious awareness but, nonetheless, influence feelings. Such information can originate from diverse sources including endocrine, immune and gastrointestinal systems as well as the PNS. We here examine physiological feelings from diverse perspectives including current and historical theories, evolution, neuroanatomy and physiology, development, regulatory processes, pathology and linguistics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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