MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

APPROACH OR AVOIDANCE (OR BOTH?): INTEGRATING CORE SELF‐EVALUATIONS WITHIN AN APPROACH/AVOIDANCE FRAMEWORK

2011· article· en· W2096738042 on OpenAlexaff
D. Lance Ferris, CHRISTOPHER R. ROSEN, Russell E. Johnson, Douglas J. Brown, Stephen D. Risavy, Daniel Heller

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonnel Psychology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConstruct (python library)Set (abstract data type)Social psychologyPersonalityCore self-evaluationsConstruct validityIncremental validityRelation (database)Predictive validityCognitive psychologyCore (optical fiber)Big Five personality traitsDevelopmental psychologyJob performancePsychometricsJob satisfactionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Core self‐evaluations (CSE) represent a new personality construct that, despite an accumulation of evidence regarding its predictive validity, provokes debate regarding the fundamental approach or avoidance nature of the construct. This set of studies sought to clarify the approach/avoidance nature of CSE by examining its relation with approach/avoidance personality traits and motivation constructs (Study 1); we subsequently examined approach/avoidance motivational mechanisms as mediators of the relation between CSE and job performance (Study 2). Overall, the studies demonstrate that CSE is best conceptualized as representing both (high) approach tendencies and (low) avoidance tendencies; implications of these findings for CSE theory are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.317
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations216
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonnel PsychologySame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207