MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785888382 · doi:10.1123/jsep.2017-0011

Experienced and Anticipated Pride and Shame as Predictors of Goal-Directed Behavior

2017· article· en· W2785888382 on OpenAlex
Jenna D. Gilchrist, David E. Conroy, Catherine M. Sabiston

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotions and Moral Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrideShamePsychologySocial psychologyRace (biology)Training (meteorology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined how experienced and anticipated pride and shame were related to time spent training and effort expended toward training the following week. Participants ( N = 158, 76% women; M age = 35.51, SD = 10.29 years) training for a marathon/half-marathon completed a weekly online questionnaire for 5 weeks leading up to a race. In the multilevel models, time spent training was positively predicted by race proximity, age, and effort expended that week. Effort expended toward training was predicted by the current week’s effort, the amount of time spent training that week, and was greater for participants who usually reported experiencing more pride than others. Neither anticipated pride or shame predicted time or effort, nor did experienced shame. The findings indicate that it is functional to foster high levels of pride when training for a long-distance race. Further work is needed to ascertain the relationship between anticipated emotions on goal-directed behavior.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.343 · 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