MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245162677 · doi:10.1002/9781118970843.ch241

Self‐control

2020· other· en· W4245162677 on OpenAlexaff
Paul F. Tremblay, Lynne Zarbatany

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wiley Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf-controlPsychologyCognitionControl (management)Delay of gratificationDistractionMechanism (biology)Cognitive psychologyTraitSelfGratificationEgo depletionSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-control is the voluntary regulation of impulses and temptations that interfere with longer-term goals and can be thought of as both a fundamental mechanism and a trait-like individual difference dimension with clear biological substrates. Self-control is constantly at play in people's lives as conflicting goals, temptations, impulses, and desires compete for attention and fulfillment. In their classic marshmallow studies with children, Walter Mischel and colleagues found individual differences in delay of gratification and developed techniques such as imagery and distraction to improve self-control. Constructs such as self-regulation, executive functions, and effortful control overlap with self-control. Roy Baumeister and colleagues have proposed that self-control can be thought of as a limited cognitive resource that competes with other cognitive tasks such as decision-making. Developmental and clinical researchers have shown the importance of addressing prevention and intervention of self-control problems as early in development as possible.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.009

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 head0.327
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wiley Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual DifferencesSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207