MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379649870 · doi:10.1177/10892680231170263

Self-Talk: An Interdisciplinary Review and Transdisciplinary Model

2023· article· en· W4379649870 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander T. Latinjak, Alain Morin, Thomas M. Brinthaupt, James Hardy, Antonis Hatzigeorgiadis, Philip C. Kendall, Christopher P. Neck, Emily J. Oliver, Małgorzata M. Puchalska‐Wasyl, Alla V. Tovares, Adam Winsler

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of General Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsychological interventionNomological networkMetacognitionSelfTask (project management)Social psychologyCognitive psychologyEpistemologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present work synthesises the self-talk literature and constructs a transdisciplinary self-talk model to guide future research across all academic disciplines that engage with self-talk. A comprehensive research review was conducted, including 559 self-talk articles published between 1978 and 2020. These articles were divided into 6 research categories: (a) inner dialogue, (b) mixed spontaneous and goal-directed organic self-talk, (c) goal-directed self-talk, (d) spontaneous self-talk, (e) educational self-talk interventions, and (f) strategic self-talk interventions. Following this, critical details were extracted from a subsample of 100 articles to create an interdisciplinary synthesis of the self-talk literature. Based on the synthesis, a self-talk model was created that places spontaneous and goal-directed organic self-talk as well as educational and strategic self-talk interventions in relation to variables within their nomological network, including external factors (e.g. task difficulty), descriptive states and traits (e.g. emotions), behaviour and performance, metacognition, and psychological skills (e.g. concentration).

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0140.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.445 · 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

Citations56
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of General PsychologySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207