MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096540071 · doi:10.1002/per.829

Perfectionism Dimensions and the Five–factor Model of Personality

2011· article· en· W2096540071 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Personality · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoJewish General Hospital
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyPerfectionism (psychology)ConscientiousnessNeuroticismPersonalityConfirmatory factor analysisBig Five personality traitsClinical psychologyStructural equation modelingDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyExtraversion and introversion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study of university students ( n = 357) and community adults ( n = 223) examined personal standards (PS) and evaluative concerns (EC) higher–order dimensions of perfectionism that underlie several measures from three different theoretical frameworks. In both students and community adults, confirmatory factor analyses supported PS perfectionism and EC perfectionism higher–order latent factors. In relation to the revised NEO Personality Inventory, PS perfectionism was primarily related to conscientiousness and achievement striving. In contrast, EC perfectionism was primarily related to neuroticism, and lower positive emotions, trust and competence. EC perfectionism accounted for unique variance in current depressive and anxious symptoms over and above the five–factor domain scores. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.003
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 score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.209 · 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