MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Goal Adjustment Theory

2015· other· en· W2520170852 on OpenAlexaff
Maria G. Mens, Michael F. Scheier, Carsten Wrosch

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Encyclopedia of Adulthood and Aging · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisengagement theoryPsychologyMeasure (data warehouse)Goal settingSocial psychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceMedicineData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Goal adjustment theory identifies two processes that enable a person to adapt to the experience of unattainable goals: goal disengagement and goal reengagement. In this entry, the components of disengagement and reengagement are identified, and the importance of these components to subjective well‐being and health are described. In addition, an individual difference measure of goal adjustment capacity is discussed. Also considered are ways in which goal disengagement and goal reengagement capacities might combine, and how different combinations may be more or less adaptive at different points in the lifespan. Directions for future research are suggested.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Encyclopedia of Adulthood and AgingSame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207