MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self‐Construal and Concerns Elicited by Imagined and Real Health Problems<sup>1</sup>

2007· article· en· W2105238426 on OpenAlexaff
Ayşe K. Üskül, Michaela Hynie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Social Psychology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstrual level theoryPsychologyRecallSelf construalSocial psychologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2 studies, we examined the relationship between self‐construal and illness‐related concerns. In Study 1, participants imagined themselves experiencing a health problem described in a scenario and answered closed‐ended questions about the concerns that this situation would likely elicit. The experience of social illness concerns was predicted by collective self‐construal, and the experience of personal illness concerns tended to be predicted by endorsement of individual self‐construal. In Study 2, participants recalled a past health problem and related consequences, which were content‐coded. Collective self‐construal predicted the extent to which people mentioned issues related to others in their free‐recall illness descriptions and the number of other‐related consequences that were generated when specifically asked about them.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Social PsychologySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207