MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132114124

长期倾向调节聚焦量表述评 About Scales for Chronic Regulatory Focus Measurement

2012· article· W7132114124 on OpenAlexaff
Leiping Xu, 杭虹利, 王方华, Fanghua Wang, Leiping Xu, Hongli Hang

Bibliographic record

VenueCEIBS Institutional Repository · 2012
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus (optics)Measure (data warehouse)Perspective (graphical)Regulatory focus theory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

调节聚焦有长期倾向和短期状态两种形式,前者通过量表测量,后者通过情境工具诱发。本文将测量长期倾向调节聚焦的5种常见量表加以梳理,并结合最新研究文献评价各量表的测量效果。进一步分析发现这些量表存在概念偏离、测量不全等问题。相对而言,RFQ量表较为合适,但该量表缺乏对调节聚焦的情绪维度测量。本文可为研究者在选择和开发同类测量工具时提供新的视角。

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCEIBS Institutional RepositorySame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207