Influence of need for cognition and need for cognitive closure on three information behavior orientations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Need for Cognition and Need for Cognitive Closure are two stable traits that can enlighten the understanding of inter‐individual variations in information behavior. Following a qualitative phase, an information behavior scale was developed using items related to the ways in which information is needed, sought, used and shared. This scale was tested with 122 undergraduate students. Results of a factor analysis indicated three different and non‐mutually exclusive aspects of information behavior: orientation to rule following, preference for familiarity and simplicity, and desire for intellectual independence. Analyses of variances for each factor, using scores for Need for Cognition and Need for Cognitive Closure as independent variables, indicated that these two traits produce significant effects on information behavior. A significant main effect of Need for Cognition was observed for the orientation to rule following and the desire for intellectual independence. A significant main effect of Need for Cognition was observed for the preference for familiarity and simplicity. Lastly, a significant interaction effect between Need for Cognition and Need for Cognitive Closure was also observed for the desire for intellectual independence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".