MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Attitudes in Social Behavior

2012· other· en· W3022845430 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory R. Maio, James M. Olson, Irene Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueHandbook of Psychology, Second Edition · 2012
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial psychologyPsychologyIdeologyCertaintyFunction (biology)Relation (database)Psychological researchEpistemologyComputer sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attitudes have important consequences for understanding social behavior. As tendencies to evaluate a particular target with favor or disfavor, attitudes are related to other important psychological constructs (e.g., values, goals), while being conceptually and empirically unique. In this chapter, we review social psychological research and theory about attitudes and their link to behavior. After defining attitudes and comparing them to other important social psychological constructs (e.g., values), we examine the measurement of attitudes and the distinction between explicit and implicit measures. We then discuss the psychological content, structure, and function of attitudes, interrelations among attitudes, and the relations between attitudes and higher-order constructs, such as values and ideologies. Next, we describe a number of important characteristics that vary between attitudes (e.g., accessibility from memory, certainty), followed by discussions of how attitudes form and how they shape information processing. Finally, we consider the relation between attitudes and behavior.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.362 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHandbook of Psychology, Second EditionSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207