MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086491201 · doi:10.2466/pr0.103.3.727-731

The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR): A Factor Analysis

2008· article· en· W2086491201 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Feng Li, Yongjuan Li

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDenialConfirmatory factor analysisImpression managementDeceptionSocial psychologyFactor (programming language)Sample (material)Factor analysisPrincipal component analysisStatisticsStructural equation modelingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A confirmatory factor analysis of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding based on a sample of 683 Chinese undergraduate and graduate students did not support the 2-factor (Paulhus) or 3-factor (Paulhus & Reid) models reported for Canadian samples. A follow-up principal components factor analysis yielded four factors, suggesting that both items on self-deception and impression management were split into enhancement and denial and that the structure of the inventory might vary across nations or cultures.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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