On the Validation of the Passion Scale in Chinese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Dualistic Model of Passion posits the existence of two types of passion, namely harmonious and obsessive passion. These two types of passion have been assessed through the Passion Scale. This scale has been validated in French and English and translated in several languages. The purpose of the present research was to translate and validate it in Chinese. To this end, 286 Chinese university students completed an online questionnaire in Chinese that contained the Passion Scale, the passion criteria, as well as measures of flow and positive and negative affect. Results provided support for the two-factor structure of the Passion Scale in Chinese and for the high reliability for both subscales ( $$\alpha_{HP} = 0. 8 6$$ ; $$\alpha_{OP} = 0. 8 2$$ ). Furthermore, correlations between the harmonious and obsessive passion subscales and the passion criteria and flow and affect scales supported the convergent and divergent validity of the Chinese Passion Scale. Overall, these findings suggest that the Passion scale can be used in future research with Chinese participants.
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 | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".