MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030660189 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.838

Defensive Zeal and the Uncertain Self: What Makes You So Sure?

2003· article· en· W2030660189 on OpenAlex
Ian McGregor, Denise C. Marigold

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

VenueJournal of Personality and Social Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvictionPsychologySocial psychologySalience (neuroscience)DilemmaSocial desirabilityCognitive psychologyEpistemologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Studies 1-3, undergraduates with high self-esteem (HSEs) reacted to personal uncertainty-threats with compensatory conviction about unrelated issues and aspects of the self. In Study 1 HSEs reacted to salience of personal dilemmas with increased implicit conviction about self-definition. In Study 2 they reacted to the same uncertainty-threat with increased explicit conviction about social issues. In Study 3, HSEs (particularly defensive HSEs, i.e., with low implicit self-esteem; C. H. Jordan, S. J. Spencer, & M. P. Zanna, 2003) reacted to uncertainty about a personal relationship with compensatory conviction about social issues. For HSEs in Study 4, expressing convictions about social issues decreased subjective salience of dilemma-related uncertainties that were not related to the social issues. Compensatory conviction is viewed as a mode of repression, akin to reaction formation, that helps keep unwanted thoughts out of awareness.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.329 · 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