MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366987703 · doi:10.3390/e25050711

Psychological Implicit Motives Construct as an Emergent Fractal Attractor from Intermittent Neurophysiological Responses: Simulation and Entropy-like Characterization

2023· article· en· W4366987703 on OpenAlexaff
Miguel Ángel Martı́n, Celia Vara, Carlos García‐Gutiérrez

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttractorComputer scienceEntropy (arrow of time)FractalConstruct (python library)NeurophysiologyPsychologyCognitive psychologyStatistical physicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implicit Motives are non-conscious needs that drive human behavior towards the achievement of incentives that are affectively incited. Repeated affective experiences providing satisfying rewards have been held responsible for the building of Implicit Motives. Responses to rewarding experiences have a biological basis via close connections with neurophysiological systems controlling neurohormone release. We propose an iteration random function system acting in a metric space to model experience-reward interactions. This model is based on key facts of Implicit Motive theory reported in a broad number of studies. The model shows how (random) responses produced by intermittent random experiences create a well-defined probability distribution on an attractor, thus providing an insight into the underlying mechanism leading to the emergence of Implicit Motives as psychological structures. Implicit Motives' robustness and resilience properties appear theoretically explained by the model. The model also provides uncertainty entropy-like parameters to characterize Implicit Motives which hopefully might be useful, beyond the mere theoretical frame, when used in combination with neurophysiological methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntropySame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207