MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041675290 · doi:10.25215/0802.168

Paranormal belief and attitudes toward human rights

2020· article· en· W3041675290 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicParanormal Experiences and Beliefs
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParanormalSuperstitionPsychologySocial psychologyParapsychologyScale (ratio)Human rightsBelief systemEpistemologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLawTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study aimed at revealing the relationship between paranormal belief and attitudes toward human rights. For this purpose, two questionnaires were employed, the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale (RPBS; Tobacyk, 2004) and the Attitudes Toward Human Rights Inventory (ATHRI; Crowson, 2004). The analysis of the data (n = 220) revealed a significant negative correlation between the two scales. Based on the ANOVA results, participants with lower compared to higher paranormal belief had more positive attitudes toward human rights. In particular, in the multiple regression analysis, the Traditional Religious Belief and Superstition subscales of the RPBS scale were the main predictors for attitudes toward human rights. Therefore, both analyses support the idea that belief in paranormal phenomena decreases positive attitudes toward human rights among Iranians.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5000.581

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.285 · 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