MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212210772

If You Change Your Mind: Relationship Between Implicit Theory and Materialism

2021· article· en· W3212210772 on OpenAlexaff
Hadla Omar

Bibliographic record

VenueStudent Research Proceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterialismMindsetPsychologySocial psychologyEpistemologyCognitive psychologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Materialistic individuals engage in consumption behaviours and hold materialistic values to avoid emotional and physiological negative experiences. Some avoidance strategies, such as cognitive deconstruction, living in the present, or constant need to acquire materialistic items, are utilized to protect self-identity against any negativity. Implicit theory is the belief that attributes, or values are malleable (incremental) or fixed (entity). The present experimental research examines the relationship between implicit theory and materialism among undergraduate students. Study one involves inducing an incremental or entity mindset and then measuring the participants’ materialistic values. It predicted that those with entity mindset will hold more materialistic values than both the incremental and control group. Study two involves inducing materialistic values and then evaluating a participant's mindset. It is predicted that those with higher materialistic values will likely hold an entity mindset rather than an incremental mindset. Department: Psychology Faculty Mentor: Dr. David Watson

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudent Research ProceedingsSame topicDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionFrench-language works237,207