MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106333113 · doi:10.1177/0145445506288026

Positive Versus Negative Perfectionism in Psychopathology

2006· letter· en· W2106333113 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

VenueBehavior Modification · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerfectionism (psychology)PsychologyConscientiousnessPsychopathologyPersonalitySocial psychologyClinical psychologyBig Five personality traitsExtraversion and introversion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews the concepts of positive and negative perfectionism and the dual process model of perfectionism outlined by Slade and Owens (1998). The authors acknowledge that the dual process model represents a conceptual advance in the study of perfectionism and that Slade and Owens should be commended for identifying testable hypotheses and future research directions. However, the authors take issue with the notion that there are two types of perfectionism, with one type of perfectionism representing a "normal" or "healthy" form of perfectionism. They suggest that positive perfectionism is motivated, at least in part, by an avoidance orientation and fear of failure, and recent attempts to define and conceptualize positive perfectionism may have blurred the distinction between perfectionism and conscientiousness. Research findings that question the adaptiveness of positive forms of perfectionism are highlighted, and key issues for future research are identified.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.295 · 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