MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077106196 · doi:10.1080/00223891.2011.627968

Agentic and Communal Values: Their Scope and Measurement

2011· article· en· W2077106196 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul D. Trapnell, Delroy L. Paulhus

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyScope (computer science)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agency is the meta-concept associated with self-advancement in social hierarchies; communion is the partner concept associated with maintenance of positive relationships. Despite the wealth of data documenting the conceptual utility of agency and communion (A & C) as superordinate metaconcepts, no direct measures of global A & C value dimensions are currently available. The first part of this article presents structural analyses of data from 4 diverse data sets (3 archival and 1 new): Each included a broad inventory of values or life goals. All 4 data sets revealed higher order A & C dimensions that were either apparent or implicit. The second part details the development of the ACV, a 24-item questionnaire measuring global A and C values, and documents its psychometric properties. Four studies support their joint construct validity by positioning the value measures within a nomological network of interpersonal traits, self-favorability biases, ideology dimensions, gender, socio-sexuality, and religious attitudes. Potential applications of the new instrument are discussed.

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)0.011
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.339
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.068 · 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

Citations269
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality AssessmentSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207