Temporal Personality of Psychology Students According to their Preference for a Theoretical Orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The choice of a theoretical orientation often starts early during studies in psychology, and may guide the entire work of clinical psychologists. The aim of this study is to unveil associations between the temporal personality of university students in psychology, their personality traits and their preferences for each of the four main theoretical orientations recognized by the Ordre des Psychologues du Québec [Professional Order of Psychologists of Quebec]: psychodynamic-analytic, cognitive-behavioural, existential-humanistic and systemic-interactional. One hundred and twenty-nine students in psychology completed three online questionnaires assessing temporal personality, personality traits and theoretical orientation. Canonical correlations reveal that there are significant correlations between personality traits, temporal personality and preference for a theoretical orientation. More specifically, a preference for the existential-humanistic and systemic-interactional orientations is associated with weaker tendencies on the following temporal features: proximity of the results, consciousness of time on vacation and planning at home. Also, a preference for the cognitive-behavioural orientation is associated with stronger planning skills, time awareness and a propensity for conscientiousness. Those findings invite further investigations to better clarify the relations between time, theoretical orientation and personality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".