MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010358201 · doi:10.1037/a0018512

Intergenerational effects of high neuroticism in parents and their public health significance.

2010· letter· en· W2010358201 on OpenAlex
Mark A. Ellenbogen, Caroline S. Ostiguy, Sheilagh Hodgins

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

VenueAmerican Psychologist · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroticismPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPublic healthClinical psychologyPersonalitySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis. Honeycutt, J. M. (2010). Imagined interactions. American Psychologist, 65, 129–130. doi: 10.1037/a0018052 Lee, Y.-T., & Jussim, L. (2010). Back in the real world. American Psychologist, 65, 130–131. doi:10.1037/a0018195 Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A critical look at evidence from the field and the laboratory. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607 Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A metaanalytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 Turner, R. N., & Crisp, R. J. (2009). Imagining intergroup contact reduces implicit prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology. doi: 10.1348/014466609X419901 Turner, R. N., Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 427–441. doi: 10.1177/1368430207081533

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.272 · 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