MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033375674 · doi:10.1002/per.653

The role of personality in defeat: a revised social rank model

2007· article· en· W2033375674 on OpenAlexafffund
Edward D. Sturman, Myriam Mongrain

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Personality · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersYork University
KeywordsPsychologyPersonalityNeuroticismContext (archaeology)Social comparison theorySocial psychologySelf-criticismSubordination (linguistics)Big Five personality traitsSocial defeatDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study sought to test the role of personality within the social rank theory of depression. Specifically, self‐criticism was hypothesised to be a risk factor for mechanisms underlying involuntary subordination, while self‐efficacy was hypothesised to have a protective function. Involuntary subordination has been implicated as an underlying cause of depression and it was therefore important to determine the personality variables and other intrapsychic mechanisms that lead to this condition. The sample consisted of 115 participants (average age of 20.2 years) who were involved in athletic competition. Participants were evaluated at baseline for personality and social rank variables and for mood immediately before and after a competitive match. Two models were tested: the first model showed that self‐criticism and neuroticism predicted a heightened perception of defeat following a loss. Self‐criticism also predicted an inability to accept defeat which was associated with a latent variable interpreted as involuntary subordination. The second model demonstrated that self‐efficacy was associated with a more adaptive response to defeat, being negatively related to the perception of defeat. Both models proved to be viable and suggest that different personality styles confer specific vulnerabilities to involuntary subordination in the context of defeating events. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.015
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of PersonalitySame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207