Effects of mindset on the predictive validity of relationship constructs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les auteurs se sont penches sur les effets des attitudes ancrees deliberatives par opposition a la mises en pratique sur la validite de prediction des construits d'une relation. Des etudiants qui sortaientensemble et qui anticipaient la transition de l'universite au milieu de travail ont aborde la question d'accroitre leur engagement ou ont pense a des facons de maintenir leurs relations apres l'obtention de leur diplome. Supportant l'hypothese, cette manipulation de l'attitude ancree a interagi avec les evaluations subsequentes de la proximite de la relation et l'engagement percu du partenaire pour predire l'etat de la relation six mois plus tard. Les evaluations posees par les personnes dans un etat d'attitude deliberative etaient plus fermement associees a la survie de la relation que les evaluations semblables faites par les personnes dont l'attitude etait celle de mise en pratique. Les evaluations des relations deliberatives n'etaient positives que si leur relation suivait une trajectoire heureuse, tandis que les evaluations des personnes dont l'attitude ancree etait celle de mise en pratique, etaient positives peu importe si leurs relations suivaient une trajectoire vouee au succes ou a l'echec.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".