Psychometric Properties of Jacelon’s Attributed Dignity Scale Among College-Aged Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although extensive work on dignity has been conducted among older adults, less attention has been paid to exploring attributed dignity among college students. Thus, this study aimed to psychometrically test the Jacelon Attributed Scale (JADS) with college students. A convenient sample of 380 college students (M = 21.4 years (SD = 6.05) from a large public university completed the JADS, demographic information, self-esteem scale (SES), and social desirability scale (SDS). Exploratory factor analysis of the JADS resulted in a four-factor solution: “behavior with respect to others,” “self-value,” “perceived value from others,” and self in relation to others. Correlations among SES, SDS, and JADS indicated the construct validity of the JADS. Attributed dignity is a distinct concept for college-aged individuals. The JADS is a useful and valid instrument for determining attributed dignity among college-age individuals and is consistent with the four factors determined in the original JADS research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".