MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1759159222 · doi:10.1027/1614-0001.29.1.35

What Makes You Think You're so Smart?

2008· article· en· W1759159222 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Individual Differences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConscientiousnessOpenness to experienceExtraversion and introversionPersonalityDevelopmental psychologyBig Five personality traitsEmotionalitySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This study examined the correlates of self-estimated levels of the eight abilities of Gardner's (1983) “multiple intelligences” framework. Participants (N = 200) estimated their own levels of the eight abilities, completed two maximum performance tests of each ability, and provided self-ratings of their personality characteristics. As observed in previous research, most participants tended to overestimate their levels of ability in most of the intelligence domains. Self-estimated ability levels were generally only modestly correlated with measured levels of the same ability, and tended to show equally strong correlations with personality variables. Sex differences were observed for self-estimates of some abilities, and these sex differences were largely independent of measured ability and personality. It was concluded that high levels of self-estimated ability were related to being male, having high measured ability, and being high in Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience, and low in Emotionality.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.228 · 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