For Deliberation Sake, Show Some Constructive Emotion! How Different Types of Emotions Affect the Deliberative Quality of Interactive User Comments
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
Deliberation is classically understood as a communication process where equal participants justify their positions in a respectful, reciprocal, argumentative manner. However, critical scholars have argued for a concept of deliberation that incorporates other forms of communication beyond argumentation, for example, expressions of emotions. While previous research focused on differences between positive and negative emotions, we introduce a distinction between constructive and non-constructive expressions of emotions. Whilst constructive emotions focus on the discussed issue, non-constructive emotions refer to other participants. We draw on a quantitative relational content analysis of user comments written in an online-participation platform. The results show a positive effect of constructive expressions of emotions on the deliberative quality of interactive user comments and a negative effect of non-constructive expressions of emotions. Overall, we conclude that emotions can promote the deliberative quality of interactive user comments if they are not focused on other participants but on the discussed issue.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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