A Call for Conceptual Clarity: “Emotion” as an Umbrella Term Did Not Work—Let’s Narrow It Down
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To cut a long story short, the term "emotion" is predominantly employed as a comprehensive designation, encompassing phenomena such as feelings, affective processing, experiences, expressions, and, on occasion, cognitive processes. This has given rise to a plethora of schools of thought that diverge in their inclusion of these phenomena, not to mention the discordance regarding what emotions belong to the so-called set of discrete emotions in the first place. This is a problem, because clear and operational definitions are paramount for ensuring the comparability of research findings across studies and also across different disciplines. In response to this disagreement, it is here proposed to simplify the definition of the term "emotion", instead of using it as an umbrella term overarching an unclear set of multiple phenomena, which is exactly what left all of us uncertain about the question what an emotion actually is. From an etymological perspective, the simplest suggestion is to understand an emotion as behavior (from the Latin verb 'emovere', meaning to move out, and thus the noun 'emotion' meaning out-movement). This suggests that an emotion should not be understood as something felt, nor as a physiological reaction, or anything including cognition. Instead, emotions should be understood as behavioral outputs (not as information processing), with their connection to feelings being that they convey them. Consider fear, which should not be classified as an emotion, it should be understood as a feeling (fear is felt). The specific body posture, facial expression, and other behavioral manifestations resulting from muscle contractions should be classified as emotions with their purpose being to communicate the felt fear to conspecifics. The underlying causative basis for all that exists is affective processing (i.e., neural activity), and it provides evaluative information to support decision-making. The essence of this model is that if affective processing responds above a certain threshold, chemicals are released, which leads to a feeling (e.g., felt fear) if the respective organism is capable of conscious experience. Finally, the communication of these feelings to conspecifics is happening by emotion-behavior (i.e., emotions). In summary, affective processing guides behavior, and emotions communicate feelings. This perspective significantly simplifies the concept of an emotion and will prevent interchangeable use of emotion-related terms. Last but not least, according to the current model, emotions can also be produced voluntarily in order to feign a certain feeling, which is performed in various social settings. Applications of this model to various fields, including clinical psychology, show how beneficial it is.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".