MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012237183 · doi:10.3917/bupsy.571.0043

Interculturation, Development, and Cognition: Intercultural Autobiographical Memory – A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Identity and Memory Construction in France and Singapore

2021· article· fr· W3012237183 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rachid Oulahal

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin de psychologie · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette recherche vise à établir dans quelle mesure les adolescents québécois présentant des comportements extrêmes de contrôle du poids (CECP) diffèrent de ceux n’en présentant pas, sur les plans de l’indice de masse corporelle (IMC), de l’expérience d’intimidation vécue, du concept de soi et de la performance scolaire. Un questionnaire en ligne a été rempli par 835 élèves âgés de 14 à 18 ans. Ceux qui faisaient état d’un ou de plusieurs CECP avaient un IMC plus élevé et un concept de soi plus faible que ceux qui n’en rapportaient pas. Ils étaient plus susceptibles d’avoir été intimidés par rapport à leur poids. Les filles ayant des CECP présentaient une moindre performance scolaire en mathématiques que celles sans CECP. Les résultats suggèrent qu’il importe d’intervenir rapidement et de manière préventive auprès des adolescents afin d’éviter que leur fonctionnement social, personnel et scolaire se détériore et que les CECP perdurent.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.399
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

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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin de psychologieSame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207