MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149177893 · doi:10.1080/10720530390209289

COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY AND CONFIDENCE IN EVALUATING SELF

2003· article· en· W2149177893 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Constructivist Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive and psychological constructs research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepertory gridPsychologyCognitive complexityConstruct (python library)Personal construct theoryCognitionTask (project management)Self-confidenceSocial psychologyCognitive psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A repertory grid task was administered individually to 79 Canadian undergraduates (43 men, 36 women) in which they rated 11 personal acquaintances from 1 to 5 on each of 12 bipolar constructs (e.g., generous-stingy). The extent to which these participants used different constructs independently in rating others ("cognitive complexity") related positively to their degree of confidence in their own self-evaluations across the same constructs. There was no significant gender difference or interaction involving gender. This finding is discussed within the framework of Kelly's (1955) personal construct theory.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.305 · 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