MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058255423 · doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr1203_05

Quest and Identity Development: Re-Examining Pathways for Existential Search

2002· article· en· W2058255423 on OpenAlexaff
Derrick Klaassen, Marvin J. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for the Psychology of Religion · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)ExistentialismIdentity (music)MediationPsychologySocial psychologyScale (ratio)Personal identityPersonal developmentSelfFace (sociological concept)Identity formationEpistemologySociologySelf-conceptAestheticsSocial sciencePhilosophyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines key assumptions underlying quest as a mature religious orientation rooted in existential struggles. Quest is posited by Batson and his colleagues to be an inherently meaningful search in the face of life's challenges. Moreover, Quest is seen to operate across the lifespan independently of the developmental search for identity. Accordingly, quest's relationships with key variables should be mediated by personal meaning but not by identity development. Wong's Personal Meaning Profile and Adams's Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status were used to explore mediation of the relationship between quest (as measured by the Quest scale) and spiritual well-being (as measured by the Spiritual Well-Being Scale [SWBS]). The Quest-SWBS relation was partially mediated by personal meaning and identity development in a sample of 160 university students. These results and their implications for quest are discussed in light of Marcia's identity status theory and Wong's model of personal meaning.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations41
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for the Psychology of ReligionSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207