MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988300303 · doi:10.4236/psych.2013.412141

Behavioral and Experiential Self-Regulations in Psychological Well-Being under Proximal and Distal Goal Conditions

2013· article· en· W1988300303 on OpenAlexafffund
Péter Horváth, Vanessa McColl

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsExperiential learningPsychologyCyberneticsExperiential avoidanceComponent (thermodynamics)Goal orientationIntrinsic motivationSocial psychologyCognitive psychologyAnxietyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the relationship of goal-related components of cybernetic, behavioral, and experiential self-regulations to psychological well-being under two types of conditions, the pursuit of intrinsic goals in general and specific intrinsic goals for the academic term. In an online survey, undergraduates (N = 186) completed global measures of psychological well-being, behavioral and experiential self-regulations, and rated themselves on goal-related self-regulatory components. Correlations indicated that most of the cybernetic, behavioral and experiential self-regulatory variables were associated with each other and with well-being. In terms of the goal-related self-regulatory components, when pursuing intrinsic goals more generally, the experiential self-regulatory component of enjoyment of the activity predicted well-being. However, when pursuing intrinsic term goals, the cybernetic self-regulatory component of perceived goal progress and the behavioral self-regulatory component of self-reinforcement for goal progress predicted well-being. The findings extend theoretical conceptualizations of psychological well-being by integrating compatibilities between cybernetic, behavioral, experiential self-regulatory processes and motivational conditions.

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 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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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)0.0100.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.343 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychologySame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207