MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308314572 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v14n4p38

Who is Truly a Person with High Self-Regulation? One Who “does the Task They Dislike First” or Who “Eats the Food They Dislike First”?

2022· article· en· W4308314572 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Miki Adachi, Keisuke Adachi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsPsychologyTask (project management)TraitPerspective (graphical)PersonalityFunction (biology)Order (exchange)Self-controlSocial psychologyIowa gambling taskCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitionComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to clarify what personality trait determines task order. We conducted a web survey (N=224, 126 men and 98 women, 20-72 years age). We asked about task order in two different decision-making situations, and measured personality traits: self-regulation, BIS, and BAS. The results showed that people who start by first doing tasks they dislike had more self-regulation. For eating situations, the results indicated that people who first eat food they dislike had more self-regulation based on an automatic motivational system. Therefore, task order may involve self-regulation of different properties. In future studies, it will be necessary to approach task order from the perspective of different self-regulation: automatic self-regulation and executive function control.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207