Neuro-cognitive systems that, when dysfunctional, increase aggression risk and the potential for translation into clinical tools
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
The goal of this narrative review paper is to consider forms of neurocognitive dysfunction that increase risk for reactive and instrumental aggression. Neuro-cognitive functions that appear to mediate, inhibit or moderate reactive and instrumental aggression are identified and data on the association between perturbations of these neuro-cognitive functions and aggression risk are considered. The neuro-cognitive functions considered are: the acute threat response, emotion regulation, reinforcement-based decision-making, response control, empathy (responsiveness to distress cues) and affiliation. Their functional roles, putative neural substrates and data indicating dysfunction in aggressive populations will be considered. Moreover, brief considerations will be given regarding the impact of early life stress (abuse and neglect) may have on their development. Finally, the current situation with respect to the potential utility of neuro-cognitive indices and how such neuro-cognitive systems might be assessed is considered. • Neuro-cognitive functions that inhibit or moderate reactive and instrumental aggression are identified and data include: the acute threat response, emotion regulation, reinforcement-based decision-making, response control, empathy (responsiveness to distress cues) and affiliation. • These neuro-cognitive functions have at least partially separable neural substrates. • Consideration of how these functions may be assessed clinically is given.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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