MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567747729 · doi:10.1080/01639625.2016.1266883

The GFIT Scale: Measuring Goals Following Interpersonal Transgressions

2017· article· en· W2567747729 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueDeviant Behavior · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicForgiveness and Related Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyScale (ratio)PsychopathyInterpersonal communicationSocial psychologyInterpersonal relationshipPersonalityDark triadDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In two studies, we created and validated a scale assessing 12 possible goals that individuals might wish to pursue when transgressed against by another person (e.g., relationship maintenance, power over the offender, retributive justice). Results demonstrated that the 12 subscales of the Goals Following Interpersonal Transgressions scale (GFIT) were reliable and exhibited convergent and discriminant validity with transgression-related interpersonal motivations (i.e., the TRIM), and relevant personality traits (i.e., the Dark Triad). Additional analyses revealed that the structure of the scale was robust across different kinds of transgressions and for differing relationships between victim and offender. We argue that the GFIT is a versatile scale with several advantages over existing measures.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.307 · 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