MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075833922 · doi:10.1002/acp.1617

The role of subjective time in identity regulation

2009· article· en· W2075833922 on OpenAlexaff
Anne E. Wilson, Gregory R. Gunn, Michael G. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Cognitive Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyIdentity (music)DistancingSocial psychologyFunction (biology)Personal identityPerceptionCognitive psychologySelfCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)NeuroscienceAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We explore the function of subjective perceptions of time in regulating personal identity. Events that reflect favourably on the self feel more recent than events that reflect negatively on the self. We propose that this systematic bias in subjective time judgment serves an identity regulation function: These biases allow people to maintain a favourable evaluation of current self. Recent events are likely to be judged as ‘belonging’ to the current self and thus incorporated into current identity. Distant events are more likely to be viewed as belonging to a former self who is quite distinct from the today's self. Therefore, by perceiving past positive experiences as more recent than negative ones, people are able to continue to take credit for former glories while reducing the threat of past failings on present identity. We discuss evidence for both the motivational account of subjective distancing and its role in regulating and maintaining a desired current identity. Copyright © 2009 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 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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 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

Citations47
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Cognitive PsychologySame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207