MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self‐Awareness Part 1: Definition, Measures, Effects, Functions, and Antecedents

2011· article· en· W2156762658 on OpenAlexaff
Alain Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial and Personality Psychology Compass · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySelf-awarenessSelfNeurocognitiveConsciousnessObject (grammar)Cognitive psychologySocial psychologyFace (sociological concept)Self-knowledgeTheory of mindSelf-deceptionSelf-consciousnessCognitionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Self‐awareness represents the capacity of becoming the object of one’s own attention. In this state one actively identifies, processes, and stores information about the self. This paper surveys the self‐awareness literature by emphasizing definition issues, measurement techniques, effects and functions of self‐attention, and antecedents of self‐awareness. Key self‐related concepts (e.g., minimal, reflective consciousness) are distinguished from the central notion of self‐awareness. Reviewed measures include questionnaires, implicit tasks, and self‐recognition. Main effects and functions of self‐attention consist in self‐evaluation, escape from the self, amplification of one’s subjective experience, increased self‐knowledge, self‐regulation, and inferences about others’ mental states (Theory‐of‐Mind). A neurocognitive and socioecological model of self‐awareness is described in which the role of face‐to‐face interactions, reflected appraisals, mirrors, media, inner speech, imagery, autobiographical knowledge, and neurological structures is underlined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.163
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations281
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial and Personality Psychology CompassSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207