MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409215946 · doi:10.1037/emo0001516

Is it pain, anger, disgust, or sadness? Individual differences in expectations of pain facial expressions.

2025· article· en· W4409215946 on OpenAlexafffund
Arianne Richer, Francis Gingras, Marie‐Pier Plouffe‐Demers, Daniel Fiset, Caroline Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueEmotion · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSadnessDisgustAngerPsychologyFacial expressionCognitive psychologyAudiologyClinical psychologyMedicineCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 31.5) to rate the degree to which they perceived the six basic emotions (anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, and surprise) and pain in those images (data collected in 2023). The same pattern of findings was obtained in both data sets. Anger, disgust, and sadness were perceived as highly salient in expectations about pain facial expressions. Most importantly, three clusters of participants with distinct expectations were found. These results support the hypothesis that individual differences exist in how observers expect pain to be expressed. These individual differences might impact the ability of an observer to distinguish an expression of pain from other negative affective states, and raising awareness about them might help reduce mistakes with serious consequences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
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)0.0100.001

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmotionSame topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentFrench-language works237,207