Development and Validation of the Temporal Competency Test-5D
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed and validated a new version of our test of temporal competency. In three studies we (1) defined dimensions, created items and studied face and content validity; (2) examined dimensionality and reliability; and (3) confirmed factor structure and studied convergent validity. Focus groups were held in which we drew up temporal concepts that articulated well with clinical observations. We derived a questionnaire that was administered to French young people and this data was used to reduce the questionnaire to 15 items. Reliability and validity of the 15-item version was studied among samples: French college, French high school, and Québec college. Five dimensions were defined and retained: anticipation, full present, temporal rupture, past, future. 15 items explained 68% of variance. The model provided adequate fit in confirmatory analyses across samples. Scales converged with hypothesized dimensions of the ZTPI and scales mostly maintained acceptable reliability. Conceptual issues with ZTPI were addressed, possibly rectified and discussed in light of clinical practice. The past was defined by how much one grows from experience independently of how ‘happy’ or ‘sad’ events were. Full present and temporal rupture relate to living in the now, the first by means of flow and engagement, the second by means of addictive behaviors. Future entailed a projection unto uncertainty, whereas anticipation defined adapting behavior in order to achieve short-term goals. We found that the questionnaire had adequate psychometric proprieties among Francophone youth in Canada and in France.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".