MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253502631 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.9342

The Effects of Social Environment on Pronouns as a Measure of Self-Awareness

2018· article· en· W4253502631 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicole Persall

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPronounPsychologyFocus (optics)TraitPersonal pronounWord (group theory)Social psychologyCognitive psychologyLinguisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By analyzing the types of words used in people’s writing, we can make inferences about the different psychological states individuals may be in. According to previous research, the types of pronouns people express in their language can give information about their focus of attention. Greater use of first person singular pronouns is indicative of higher levels of self-awareness. People's focus of attention can be shifted towards the self by placing a mirror in front of them, or shifted to others by having other people present. This study manipulated levels of self-awareness in individuals, and then measured the pronoun usage in their writing using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC2007). The results showed that the mirror condition displayed a significantly higher frequency of first person pronouns compared to the group condition. These results indicate that an individual setting with a mirror increases self-awareness, and that a group setting with no mirror reduces self-awareness. Researching self-awareness is important because it is a basic trait in humans, and a lack of, or excessive levels of self-awareness may indicate psychological problems, thus it can be applied to the study of mental disorders such as depression and mania.

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)0.016
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.328 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207