Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers such as Leary argue that both interpersonal and intrapersonal processes should be considered in psychological theory and research, contrary to much research that has focused on only intrapsychic motives such as maintenance of cognitive or affective states. Therefore, authors in this issue have examined common psychological constructs within social contexts, and some have posited methodologies that may assist in this line of research in the future. In this special issue, readers will learn about self-processes and social cognition through both clinical and positive psychology lenses, meaning that authors investigated how these processes are related to both clinical dysfunction and everyday well-being respectively. Part 1 offers a look at self-awareness (SA), or the process of actively identifying, storing, and retrieving information about the self; part 2 is focused on conceptual self-processes, or the process of actively mentalizing about one’s own traits and emotions, and part 3 connects the topic of the self to that of social cognition, or the process of actively mentalizing about the self and others.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.012 |
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".