MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082269725 · doi:10.2466/pr0.99.3.930-932

Evidence of Reliability and Validity for the Universal Orientation Scale

2006· article· en· W2082269725 on OpenAlexaff
Adelheid A. M. Nicol, Kathleen Boies

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityRoyal Military College of CanadaRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial dominance orientationCronbach's alphaPsychologyScale (ratio)Orientation (vector space)Sample (material)AuthoritarianismDominance (genetics)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsMathematicsCartographyGeographyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationships of Universal Orientation with Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation were examined in two studies. Undergraduate students from various universities completed three measures. 314 participated in Study 1 and 461 participated in Study 2. Scores on the Universal Orientation scale correlated weakly with those on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale (r = -.14 for both samples) and moderately with the Social Dominance Orientation scale (r = -.50 for Sample 1 and r = -.36 for Sample 2). Low Cronbach alphas for the Universal Orientation scale (alpha = .68 for the first sample and alpha = .60 for the second sample) suggest the scale requires revision.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207