MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4245808177 · doi:10.24124/2014/bpgub988

Self-perception of affect expression.

2014· dissertation· en· W4245808177 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. Erin Browne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyEmotion perceptionFacial expressionPerceptionAffect (linguistics)FeelingSet (abstract data type)Expression (computer science)Emotional expressionInternational Affective Picture SystemCognitive psychologyClinical psychologyArousalSocial psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Definitions of alexithymia rest upon the assumption that the trait is characterized by deficits in emotional processing; though impaired perception of one's own emotion is considered a core feature o f alexithymia, empirical investigation of this deficit is lacking.Additionally, the impact of alexithymia on pain experience, perception and expression has not been well investigated.In this study, participants were covertly videotaped as they rated their feelings during a cold pressor task and an emotional slide-viewing task.In a second session, participants viewed clips o f their faces expressing emotion and pain, and made a second set of ratings to determine perceptual accuracy.Results indicate that: while participants are accurate in rating their own facial expressions o f emotion and of pain, high scores on components of alexithymia are associated with specific deficits in self-perception of negative emotion, a tendency to rate self-perceived negative emotion as less negative, and increased subjective pain intensity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments→French-language works237,207→