A Person‐Centered Perspective on Multidimensional Perfectionism in Canadian and Chinese University Students: A Multigroup Latent Profile Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the generalizability of the tripartite model of perfectionism across Canadian and Chinese university students. Using latent profile analysis and indicators of perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, and neuroticism in both groups, the authors derived a 3‐profile solution: adaptive perfectionists, maladaptive perfectionists, and nonperfectionists. Furthermore, multigroup latent profile analysis supported the construct equivalence of the 3‐profile solution across groups. Results further suggested that a greater proportion of Chinese students could be classified as adaptive perfectionists. Este estudio investigó la generalizabilidad del modelo tripartito de perfeccionismo entre estudiantes universitarios canadienses y chinos. Usando un análisis de perfil latente e indicadores de esfuerzos perfeccionistas, preocupaciones perfeccionistas y neuroticismo en ambos grupos, los autores desarrollaron una solución de 3 perfiles: perfeccionistas adaptados, perfeccionistas inadaptados y no perfeccionistas. Además, el análisis de perfil latente multigrupo confirmó la equivalencia de constructo de la solución de 3 perfiles en estos grupos. Los resultados sugieren también que una mayor proporción de estudiantes chinos podría clasificarse como perfeccionistas adaptados.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it