MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1877733168 · doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7103006

A Multilevel Analysis of the Interpersonal Behavior of Socially Anxious People

2003· article· en· W1877733168 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan M. Oakman, Shannon Gifford, Natasha Chlebowsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyInterpersonal communicationPolitenessDominance (genetics)TraitInterpersonal interactionContext (archaeology)Relevance (law)Interpersonal relationshipSocial relationDevelopmental psychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the interpersonal behavior of socially anxious (SA) and non-socially anxious (NSA) individuals at three different levels of analysis, focusing on the dimensions of warmth and dominance. Study 1 examines self-reported general interaction styles, Study 2 explores behavior occurring within the context of a single interaction, and in Study 3 we focus on the performance of a single conversational act (a disagreement). Studies 1 and 2 adopt the framework of Interpersonal Circumplex Theory (IPC; Kiesler, 1983), which is well suited for studying trait-level and interaction-level social behaviors, while Study 3 is grounded in Politeness Theory (PT; Brown & Levinson, 1987), which can be used to analyze individual acts at the microstructural level. The potential mutual relevance of PT and IPC is also discussed.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations29
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PersonalitySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207