Trait Perfectionism and Dance Goals Among Young Female Dancers: An Application of the 2 × 2 Model of Perfectionism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provided the first test of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism with respect to dancers' goals for dancing in competitive dance. Four hundred twenty-five young female North American competitive dancers (M = 11.33 years; SD = 2.14) completed questionnaires assessing multidimensional perfectionism and goals for participation in dance. The latent moderated structural equations approach along with procedures outlined by Gaudreau indicated partial support for the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism. Pure Evaluative Concerns Perfectionism was associated with fewer intrinsic goals for dance and greater extrinsic goals for dance relative to nonperfectionism. Pure Personal Standards Perfectionism was related to less endorsement of extrinsic goals relative to nonperfectionism. Findings were complex with respect to mixed perfectionism, with this form of perfectionism being related to greater endorsement of both intrinsic and extrinsic goals for dance. Results provide partial support for the 2 × 2 model in youth dance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".