On the Development of Harmonious and Obsessive Passion: The Role of Autonomy Support, Activity Specialization, and Identification With the Activity
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research (Vallerand et al., 2003) has supported the existence of two types of passion for activities: a harmonious and an obsessive passion. The purpose of this investigation was to study the processes likely to lead to the development of passion. Three studies using correlational and short-term longitudinal designs with varied populations ranging from beginners to experts reveal that identification with the activity, activity specialization, parents' activity valuation, and autonomy support predict the development of passion. Furthermore, results show that children and teenagers whose environment supports their autonomy are more likely to develop a harmonious passion than an obsessive one. Conversely, children and teenagers who highly value activity specialization, who rely heavily on their activity for self-definition, and whose parents highly value the activity are more likely to develop an obsessive passion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it