Bolstering Implementation Plans for the Long Haul: The Benefits of Simultaneously Boosting Self-Concordance or Self-Efficacy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies suggest that implementation planning exercises may not be as helpful for long-term, self-initiated goals as for short-term, assigned goals. Two studies used the personal goal paradigm to explore the impact of implementation plans on goal progress over time. Study 1 examined whether administering implementation plans in an autonomy supportive manner would facilitate goal progress relative to a neutral, control condition and a condition in which implementation plans were administered in a controlling manner. Study 2 examined whether combining implementation plans with a self-efficacy boosting exercise would facilitate goal progress relative to a neutral, control condition and a typical implementation condition. The results showed that implementation plans alone did not result in greater goal progress than a neutral condition but that the combination of implementation plans with either autonomy support or self-efficacy boosting resulted in significantly greater goal progress.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it