Testing a Reward-Processing Model of Negative Urgency in Women With and Without Binge Eating
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
Negative urgency (i.e., the tendency to act impulsively when experiencing negative affect) is robustly associated with psychopathology, but the mechanisms underlying negative urgency and its relation to mental health are not well understood. In addition to interfering with cognitive control, negative emotions may lead to impulsive behavior by enhancing reward processing of desired stimuli. In this study, we tested an emotion-enhanced reward-processing model of negative urgency in 153 women who spanned the spectrum of binge-eating severity. Participants completed two experimental tasks under both stressful- and relaxed-mood conditions while physiological, behavioral, and self-report indices of reward processing of palatable food were assessed. Contrary to hypotheses, reward processing of food was not heightened when stressed versus relaxed either in the full sample or in participants with greater negative urgency or binge-eating frequency/severity. Findings are discussed considering study limitations and previous mechanistic work on negative urgency.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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