MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011702114 · doi:10.1080/00224540309598469

The Elusive Nature of Self-Measurement: The Self-Construal Scale Versus the Twenty Statements Test

2003· article· en· W2011702114 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

VenueThe Journal of Social Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct (python library)PsychologyOperationalizationScale (ratio)Construct validityConstrual level theorySocial psychologyTest (biology)Sample (material)PsychometricsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, the authors compared 2 frequently used measures to operationalize the construct of the self, namely, the Self-Construal Scale (SCS; T. M. Singelis, 1994) and the Twenty Statements Test (TST; M. Kuhn & T. S. McPartland, 1954), in a sample of 324 male and female undergraduate psychology students of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds. Results demonstrated low intercorrelations between the 2 measures, suggesting that the qualitative and quantitative measures did not evaluate the same construct. A factor analysis of the SCS scale revealed 3 constructs-an independent construct, an interdependent construct, and a power distance or hierarchy construct. Implications for future research included the need for ongoing work in identifying and measuring the constructs of the self.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.416
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