Social Influence on Sexual Constructs
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
Social context, as mentioned in the Chapter 2 , has been given relatively little explicit consideration in personal construct theory (PCT) to date. There is a formal recognition of social relationships in terms of the sociality corollary of the theory, or to the extent that people interpret the construction processes of others they are able to play roles in social processes involving others (Kelly, 1955). This theoretical corollary has inspired an entire book to make sense of social processes, individuals, and related topics (see Bannister, 1979; Stringer, 1979), as well as numerous attempts (already mentioned) to sort out the social side of PCT. In addition, Kelly’s commonality corollary—to the extent that one person employs a construction of experience similar to that employed by another person, their psychological processes can be seen as similar—seems to point to social factors to some extent. It remains unclear, however, what social processes and social context actually mean to individuals, self-identity, and especially to their understanding of sexuality. Additionally, the ontological status of various social factors is unresolved within the theory, which is odd and uncomfortable in a personality theory with clinical implications—social interaction and social conditions must be relevant, for example, to a psychotherapeutic encounter if only between two individuals. We feel the need here to consider the potential contributions to PCT, and especially a PCT-based understanding of sexuality, of sociology, social psychology (both psychological and sociological social psychology), and other social science disciplines.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.010 |
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