MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413838756 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp19806

Reading the Room: Emotional Valence Appraisal in Adolescent and Adult Expressers

2025· article· en· W4413838756 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Victoria Cassel, Michele Morningstar

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Valence (chemistry)Emotional valencePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitionChemistryPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whether someone is expressing a positive emotion (i.e. happiness) or a negative emotion (i.e. anger) can determine how we interact with them (McArthur and Baron, 1983). Hence, our perception of emotional valence (i.e., whether an emotion is pleasant or unpleasant; Barrett, 2006) can influence how we approach others. Research on the perception of emotion in others has focused on how we view children and adults’ emotional expressions, but not those of adolescents. We have an incomplete understanding of how emotion perception is affected by the expresser’s age. The current study assessed variations in perceivers’ ratings of emotional valence when viewing stimulus recordings of adolescent or adult expressers portraying different emotions. Using the lmerTest package in R Studio, linear mixed effects models were performed to investigate the effect of expresser age on raters’ perceptions of emotional valence in each recording. Models were built by adding fixed effects of stimulus age (adolescent or adult), emotion type (happiness, sadness, fear, anger, or neutral), and the interaction between stimulus age and emotion type in sequence. Significance was determined via likelihood ratio tests comparing each model to the previous one. There was a significant main effect of emotion type (happiness, sadness, fear, anger, or neutral) on emotional valence ratings. There was no main effect of stimulus age on emotional valence ratings; however, there was an interaction between emotion type and stimulus age. Compared to adolescents, adults were rated more negatively when expressing fear and sadness and more positively when expressing happiness. Results suggest that there are differences in how positively/negatively adult and adolescent expressers are perceived, depending on the type of emotion being expressed. This research can inform advertising: for instance, adults expressing happiness may be perceived more positively than adolescents, which could increase the likelihood that customers will purchase their products. References Barrett, L.F. (2006) Valence is a basic building block of emotional life. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 35-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.006. McArthur, L. Z. & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90(3), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.215

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)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207