MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336479649 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v8n2p54

The Post-Rationalist Projective Reactive, PRPR: Validation of the First Post-Rationalist Projective Test

2016· article· en· W2336479649 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emidio Arimatea, Mirta Vernice, Matteo Giordani, Andrés Moltedo-Perfetti, Bernardo Nardi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProjective testPsychologyFeelingCompetence (human resources)CognitionSocial psychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Starting from the epistemology of complexity and subjectivity, a new instrument has been devised to investigate the subjective ways in which experiences are self referred at the level of immediate experience. The construction and validation process of the Post-Rationalist Projective Reactive (PRPR) are described, the first cognitive post-rationalist projective tool. It investigates Personal Meaning Organizations (PMOs) according to the adaptive and evolutionary post-rationalist approach. Using 20 stimulus tables, it allows respondents to go deeper into the specific narrative plots of their personality and to understand their inner film, to focus on their subjective feelings. PRPR was administered to a cohort of 294 subjects. A Reliability Analysis and a Cluster Analysis were carried out. Cluster analysis identified four clusters that overlapped with the theoretical PMOs description. PRPR pictures showed good internal consistency as Reliability Analysis. Significant convergent validity correlations were found with the results of the Mini Questionnaire of Personal Organization (MQPO; r = .71, p < .001) and of clinical interviews (r = .76, p < .001). The PRPR proved to be both a valuable support for the PMO construct and an effective assessment tool capable of delving into the processes of subjective meaning construction to understand the cognitive organizational closure, reducing the distance between immediate experience and its explanations.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207