MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083309415 · doi:10.3200/socp.149.2.195-212

Why Not Procrastinate? Development and Validation of a New Active Procrastination Scale

2009· article· en· W2083309415 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Social Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcrastinationConstruct (python library)Nomological networkPsychologyScale (ratio)Measure (data warehouse)Social psychologyDysfunctional familyComputer scienceClinical psychologyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Procrastination has been studied as a dysfunctional, self-effacing behavior that ultimately results in undesirable outcomes. However, A. H. C. Chu and J. N. Choi (2005) found a different form of procrastination (i.e., active procrastination) that leads to desirable outcomes. The construct of active procrastination has a high potential to expand the time management literature and is likely to be adopted by researchers in multiple areas of psychology. To facilitate the research on this new construct and its further integration into the literature, the authors developed and validated a new, expanded measure of active procrastination that reliably assesses its four dimensions. Using this new measure of active procrastination, they further examined its nomological network. The new 16-item measure is a critical step toward further empirical investigation of active procrastination.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.320 · 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