MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116047843 · doi:10.1027/1614-0001.30.3.163

Life Regrets by Avoidant and Arousal Procrastinators

2009· article· en· W2116047843 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

VenueJournal of Individual Differences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcrastinationRegretPsychologyFeelingArousalDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyAnxietyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined the relationship between two types of chronic procrastination and 12 varied life domains in which individuals report regret. Subjects were 2,887 adults (1,776 women and 1,111 men; M age = 38.63 years; SD = 14.35) from across the United States. Initially, pure arousal (n = 386), avoidant (n = 220), and nonprocrastinators (n = 215) were identified. Results found that nonprocrastinators reported significantly less regret than both avoidant and arousal procrastinators in domains of education pursuits, parenting, family and friend interactions, health and wellness, and financial planning. There were no significant differences in feelings of regret between chronic procrastinators and nonprocrastinators in romance, career planning, and spiritual and self-improvements. Further research should explore the specific causes and consequences of regret among chronic procrastinators.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.267 · 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