MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149870839 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1303

The interpersonal expression of perfection: Perfectionistic self-presentation and psychological distress.

2003· article· en· W2149870839 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 Personality and Social Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegYork UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyInterpersonal communicationPerfectionExpression (computer science)DistressPresentation (obstetrics)Context (archaeology)Interpersonal attractionInterpersonal relationshipPersonal distressPromotion (chess)PsychotherapistEmpathy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A concept involving the interpersonal expression of perfection, perfectionistic self-presentation, is introduced. It is argued that perfectionistic self-presentation is a maladaptive self-presentational style composed of three facets: perfectionistic self-promotion (i.e., proclaiming and displaying one's perfection), nondisplay of imperfection (i.e., concealing and avoiding behavioral demonstrations of one's imperfection), and nondisclosure of imperfection (i.e., evading and avoiding verbal admissions of one's imperfection). Several studies involving diverse samples demonstrate that perfectionistic self-presentation is a valid and reliable construct and a consistent factor in personal and interpersonal psychological distress. It is argued that the need to promote one's perfection or the desire to conceal one's imperfection involves self-esteem regulation in the interpersonal context.

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)0.000
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 score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.331 · 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