MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412818678 · doi:10.56028/aetr.14.1.1497.2025

Cinematic Emotions: How Films Influence Hormonal Responses and Viewer Physiology

2025· article· en· W4412818678 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Engineering Technology Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHormonePhysiologyPsychologyComputer scienceBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Films are not only psychological stimuli but also physiological ones, capable of triggering significant hormonal changes in viewers. This paper explores how narrative structures, visual aesthetics, sound design, and emerging technologies like VR and 3D affect the endocrine system—particularly hormones such as dopamine, cortisol, and oxytocin. Drawing from neuroscience, psychology, and film studies, the article examines how these cinematic elements modulate emotional responses by activating neural and hormonal pathways. It also considers individual differences based on gender, age, and culture, highlighting how audience-specific factors influence physiological reactions. The findings suggest that film-induced hormonal responses are complex, multisensory phenomena with potential applications in therapy, media production, and emotional research.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.320 · 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