MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Personal Construct Theory

2009· book-chapter· en· W41293873 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

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive and psychological constructs research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct (python library)Personal construct theoryTheory of reasoned actionUnderpinningTheory of planned behaviorEpistemologyDiversity (politics)PsychologyManagement scienceSociologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyEngineeringArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of any discipline is related to the strength of its underpinning theoretical base. Wellestablished disciplines have a diversity of clearly stated and competing theoretical frameworks to describe and explain theoretical constructs. Information systems (IS) is a relatively new discipline; many well-known IS theories (such as the technology acceptance model, theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour) are borrowed from disciplines such as economics and psychology. This chapter outlines personal construct psychology, a psychological theory. Current applications of methodologies based in personal construct theory are discussed, and the positioning of the theory within a broader taxonomy of IS theory is explored.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.006

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.297 · 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