MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A fuzzy computational model for emotion regulation based on Affect Control Theory

2016· article· en· W85857222 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Soleimani, Ziad Kobti

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotions and Moral Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Cognitive psychologyComputer scienceAffective computingPerspective (graphical)Process (computing)Kernel (algebra)Fuzzy logicMeaning (existential)Control (management)AutomatonDynamics (music)Appraisal theorySpace (punctuation)PsychologyArtificial intelligenceSocial psychologyMathematicsCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we introduce a computational model for the appraisal processes underlying emotion regulation from the perspective of Affect Control Theory. According to this theory, the affective meaning of emotions, behaviours, objects, and other entities can be assessed and projected onto a three dimensional space of evaluation, potency, and activity. This concept was applied to events occurring in the environment of an affective agent in order to study the dynamics of emotional changes caused by these events. Several appraisal processes were used to effectively analyze the affective impact of the occurred events and to interpret them in terms of the three dimensions of the affect control theory. A fuzzy automata framework was investigated and found to be a good fit to represent the dynamics of changes in the affective states and to effectively picture the transitions between different emotional response levels. Based on the results obtained from conducted experiments, we can argue that the proposed model has the potential to be used in predicting the emotional changes in (human/virtual) agents as a result of the occurrence of emotion-triggering events. Furthermore, it would appear that the proposed model has the capability to be used as the kernel of an extended system developed for reverse engineering events, and to generate and apply those in-favor of emotion regulation process.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmotions and Moral BehaviorFrench-language works237,207