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
Emotion researchers have begun to converge on the theory that emotions are psychologically and socially constructed. A common assumption in affective robotics is that emotions are categorical brain-body states that can be confidently modeled. But if emotions are constructed, then they are interpretive, ambiguous, and specific to an individual’s unique experience. Constructivist views of emotion pose several challenges to affective robotics: first, it calls into question the validity of attempting to obtain objective measures of emotion through rating scales or biometrics. Second, ambiguous subjective data poses a challenge to computational systems that need structured and definite data to operate. How can a constructivist view of emotion be rectified with these challenges? In this article, we look to psychotherapy for ontological, epistemic, and methodological guidance. These fields (1) already understand emotions to be intrinsically embodied, relative, and metaphorical and (2) have built up substantial knowledge informed by everyday practice. It is our hope that by using interpretive methods inspired by therapeutic approaches, HRI researchers will be able to focus on the practicalities of designing effective embodied emotional interactions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.001 |
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.
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