MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996704344

A Simplified Framework for Working with Emotions

2016· dissertation· en· W6996704344 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNational University System Repository (National University System) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Treatments and Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Interpersonal communicationElement (criminal law)Key (lock)Interpersonal relationship
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emotion is a key element of interpersonal relations, and emotion-related difficulties are one of the leading causes of suffering and failure to adapt to the demands of life. Viewing “emotions as a symptom” via the medical model—or even emotions as “goals” in themselves— seems to continue to contribute harms to individuals via the consequences and side effects of psychophrarmaceutical and substance use, along with general losses of human potential. This paper is an investigation of the relationship between emotions (here broadly defined as a motivating factor driving behaviour and memory formation), perception, goals, and the difficulty of achieving goals. A model of emotional self-regulation termed the personal world model is constructed with the aid of a literature review, proposing emotion as the central process underlying all human self-regulatory functioning. The model is tested and refined using data from the Statistics Canada 2002 Canadian Community Health Survey. Recommendations are made as to possible applications and use of this model in future studies and during psychotherapy training and practice.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational University System Repository (National University System)Same topicPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207