Development and Application of the Life Roles Inventory-Values Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
consortium of psychologists under Donald E. Super's guidance, was the Values Scale, which tapped work and life values. The scale was later revised as part of a Canadian project and renamed the Life Roles Inventory-Values Scale (LRI-VS: Macnab, Fitzsimmons, & Casserly, 1987). The present study used a sample of 202 management and nursing undergraduates to provide a psychometric evaluation of the LRI-VS. Overall, the tesults from the internal-consistency reliability analyses, factor analyses at the item, value, and component levels, and gender analyses, provided qualified support for the scale. In spite of some psychometric limitations, the usefulness of the LRI-VS as a tool for self-discovery, educational, and cateet counselling receives qualified supported. Further refinement is recommended for the scale. RESUME L'étude sur l'importance du travail {Work importance Study- WIS] a débuté en 1979 à l'initiative d'un consortium international de psychologues, sous la direction de Donald E. Supet. L'échelle des valeurs [ Values Scale], qui analysait des valeurs du travail et des valeuts humaines, constitue l'un des tésultats les plus importants de cette étude. L'échelle a été, plus tard, révisée en tant que section d'un projet canadien et a été rebaptisée « Inventaire des rôles de
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".