MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094347086 · doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000145

Placing Dispositional Forgiveness Within Theories of Adult Personality Development

2013· article· en· W2094347086 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

VenueEuropean Psychologist · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicForgiveness and Related Behaviors
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForgivenessPsychologyPersonalityTraitSocial psychologyConsistency (knowledge bases)Personality developmentBig Five personality traitsAdult developmentDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compared to the longstanding literature on the process of forgiveness or state forgiveness, relatively less research has focused on how to develop a dispositional tendency to forgive others, known as forgivingness. This holds particularly true with respect to adulthood, which has been typically viewed as a period of personality consistency rather than change. In the current paper, we begin by discussing forgivingness and its potential for promoting adult well-being. Next, we describe three literatures that help us understand possible influences on forgivingness development in adulthood, which focus on (a) how adults respond to their changing societal roles, (b) the choices they make with respect to social and emotional regulation, and (c) their relationship attachment models. Finally, we conclude by presenting important questions for the future research on this personality trait.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.275 · 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