MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726437596 · doi:10.14288/cjur.v2i1.188732

Exploring a Novel Approach to Study Self-Esteem in Children: An Implicit Model

2016· article· en· W2726437596 on OpenAlexaff
Parky Lau

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf-esteemPsychologyFeelingImplicit attitudeScale (ratio)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-esteem, an important topic in behavioral research, refers to the positive or negative subjective evaluation of one’s self. Indeed, our feelings of self-worth influence a wide range of domains such as mental well-being, academic success and life satisfaction. Clearly, it is important to foster healthy self-esteem as early as possible in development by assessing the specific factors that promote positive self-esteem in childhood. Yet, this research in children has mostly employed an explicit approach and may not reflect an accurate representation of a child’s self-esteem. Here, I argue for the use of an implicit model in studying self-esteem in providing a more holistic approach. Specifically, I will outline some key weaknesses of a solely explicit model and the benefits of employing an implicit model to the study of children’s self-esteem. Specific methods that can be utilized to measure implicit self-esteem in children will also be discussed. Finally, I will provide possible future directions for the application of a holistic approach in order to investigate specific parental techniques and environmental factors that promote the healthy development of explicit and implicit self-esteem.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207