MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953651514 · doi:10.1590/1413-82712019240202

Inventário Reno de Autoperspectiva RISP: Adaptação Transcultural e Evidência de Validade

2019· article· pt· W2953651514 on OpenAlexaff
Evandro Morais Peixoto, Joël Gagnon, Tami Jeffcoat

Bibliographic record

VenuePsico-USF · 2019
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resumo Esta pesquisa teve como objetivos a adaptação transcultural e avaliação das propriedades psicométricas da versão brasileira do Reno Inventory of Self-Perspective - RISP, instrumento que avalia a habilidade de tomada de perspectiva, compreensão de si mesmo enquanto construção contextual, por meio dos fatores enredado, centrado e transcendente. A amostra foi composta por 344 universitários (idade 21,1 ± 4,8; 64,2% mulheres). A estrutura interna foi estimada por meio do Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM). Também se avaliou a invariância do modelo fatorial entre participantes do sexo masculino e feminino, indicadores de precisão e associação com variáveis externas: satisfação com a vida, fusão cognitiva, ansiedade, estresse e depressão. Os resultados revelaram a estrutura composta por três fatores, conforme hipótese teórica, com indicadores desejáveis de precisão. Foi demonstrado equivalência do modelo de medida ao avaliar participantes dos diferentes sexos, e associações correspondentes as perspectivas teóricas com as variáveis externas estudadas. Os resultados sugerem adequação da versão brasileira RISP.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.371
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsico-USFSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207