MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038925213 · doi:10.1080/10720530125762

COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY AND ROLE RELATIONSHIPS

2001· article· en· W2038925213 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

VenueJournal of Constructivist Psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive and psychological constructs research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConstruct (python library)Cognitive complexitySocialityCognitionSocial psychologyCorrelationAssociation (psychology)Developmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crockett's (1965) Role Category Questionnaire was used to assess individual differences in cognitive complexity among 40 couples (40 men, 40 women). Female participants were significantly more cognitively complex than were male participants. Consistent with Crockett's "familiarity hypothesis," both men and women applied significantly more personal constructs to acquaintances of their own gender, and also significantly more personal constructs to liked acquaintances than to disliked ones. There was a substantial correlation between participants and their respective partners in terms of cognitive complexity, which was interpreted within the general framework of Kelly's (1955) personal construct theory. It was hypothesized specifically that the correlation between partners in terms of their relative cognitive complexity reflects mutual sociality in the development of a couple's role relationship.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.255 · 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