MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7112974931

Goals and Emotions

2020· book-chapter· en· W7112974931 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Explorer (The University of Manchester) · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Power and Status Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Control (management)Relation (database)PerceptionOrder (exchange)Term (time)Balance (ability)Moment (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter describes and explains emotions in terms of their relationship with goals using a control theory approach. A comprehensive and widely cited overview of goals in psychology defined a goal as ‘internal representations of desired states, where states are broadly construed as outcomes, events or processes’ (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). Austin and Vancouver (1996) go on to give examples of these desired states, which include biological set points (e.g. body temperature) and abstractions of complex outcomes (e.g. career success, which could include achieving goals in sport), encompass wide-ranging durations from the present moment to the lifespan, and span the domains of the neurological, psychological, and social. Please note that goals in the psychological literature are much wider than the way that the term ‘goal’ is used in common parlance. A goal can include abstract, socially relevant set points such as being honest, worthwhile, or creative, as well as simple, concrete set points such as gripping a racquet tightly or keeping balance while in motion. Importantly, these authors found it necessary to use an organizing theoretical framework with specific operational definitions of its components for their review, and they used a form of control theory developed by Powers, often known as perceptual control theory (Powers, 1973, 2005). This chapter will begin with a rationale for why emotions can be understood in relation to goals. The wider literature on goals and emotions will be reviewed in order to describe the current state of knowledge in this area, and then the control theory model will be used to elaborate and describe a mechanistic, functional account of the role of emotions. This account will be divided into the components of control theory, explaining their relevance to emotion, and it will conclude with the implications of a goal-oriented approach to emotion informed by control theory. The chapter begins with an open-minded approach to the role of emotion within what is often regarded as a relatively mechanistic and ‘cold’ account – ‘goals’ and ‘control theory’. Yet the chapter converges on a conclusion that emotion exists in almost every feature of goal functioning, both unconscious and conscious, interpersonal and intrapersonal, and that emotions are a fundamental marker of the dynamic features of goals, such as conflict, higher-level perspective-taking, and change.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.196 · 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