MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3021680082 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/786sh

Self-Regulation of Implicit Social Cognition

2019· preprint· en· W3021680082 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew M Rivers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplicit-association testPsychologyImplicit attitudeCognitionSocial cognitionPhobiasCognitive psychologyAssociation (psychology)Social psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implicit measures of social cognition have grown increasingly popular over the past two decades. Not only have they become ubiquitous within social psychology, but they are also now commonly applied in a broad array of domains beyond social psychology, ranging from brand evaluations to phobias to addiction. Their widespread use is largely due to the assumption that implicit measures provide a more clear view into hidden cognitive processes than do explicit (i.e., self-report) measures. However, there is debate about which cognitive processes implicit measures primarily reflect. Tasks such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT) were initially designed to measure behavioral impulses induced by mental association between concepts (e.g., the outgroup) and attributes (e.g., negative). Although measures like the IAT do reflect behavioral impulses, self-regulation also plays an important role in inhibiting undesirable impulses.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial and Intergroup Psychology→French-language works237,207→