Missing the mark: Effects of time and causal attributions on goal revision in response to goal-performance discrepancies.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an attempt to extend past goal setting research, the present study examined the influence of goal-performance discrepancies (GPDs), causal attributions, and temporal factors on the process of dynamic self-regulation. Goal revision processes were examined longitudinally in a sample of 100 varsity-level college track and field athletes over the course of an 8-week competitive season. The results indicate that an individual's GPD significantly predicted the amount of goal revision engaged in by the athletes, such that participants were more likely to lower their competition (proximal) and season (distal) goals when they failed to reach these goals and their respective GPDs were large. However, as hypothesized, this relationship was moderated by stability attributions and the temporal location of the individual with respect to the time period allotted for goal attainment. Implications for future research in the area of goal setting and dynamic self-regulation are 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it