The Personal Functioning Inventory: A reliable and valid measure of adaptiveness in coping.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article rend compte de la conception et de la validation du Personal Functioning Inventory (PFI), une nouvelle mesure de l'adaptativite lors de l'ajustement. Dans l'etude 1, deux echantillons d'adultes (N = 105 et 101) ont demontre que le PFI presentait une fiabilite elevee et une correlation importante relativement a l'echelle cumulee de l'evaluation de l'adaptativite. Dans l'etude 2, qui a fait appel a 140 etudiants du premier cycle, le PFI a presente de nouveau une fiabilite elevee ainsi qu'une relation positive a la confiance quant a la resolution de probleme et une relation negative au stress percu. L'etude 3, une etude longitudinale realisee en deux temps, faisait appel a 149 etudiants du premier cycle, au temps 1, parmi lesquels on a retenu 107 participants, au temps 2. L'etude 3 a fait ressortir la fiabilite et la stabilite elevees du PFI, des relations positives concurrentes et predictives par rapport a l'auto-evaluation de l'adaptativite et une anxiete chronique prolongee, ainsi que la validite discriminante par opposition a la curiosite abstraite. L'analyse factorielle appuyait de facon constante la structure unifactorielle du PFI. Pour finir, les applications eventuelles de l'echelles sont soulignees. '
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".