Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Belief Identification" is the process of identifying certain beliefs as critical parts of the self. This construct has important implications in adolescence, as strong commitments may facilitate identity formation, yet may also inhibit open-mindedness during the belief forming process. This study examined three theoretical components of Belief Identification: Epistemological development, cognitive flexibility, and personal meaning. The primary goal was to determine whether the components varied by age (Grades 8 and 12) and/or by domain (academic, sociocultural and moral) and to explore interrelations among them. The secondary goal was to examine whether variation in the components could be explained by individual differences in cognitive ability (IQ), thinking dispositions, implicit theories of intelligence and/or self-concept. To address these goals, 80 adolescents completed an interview assessing the three components of Belief Identification. Epistemological development measured adolescents' stance toward the objective and subjective dimensions of their beliefs. Cognitive flexibility was measured by a debate task requiring adolescents to assume opposing perspectives on their beliefs. Personal meaning measured the strength of adolescents' conviction in their beliefs. Overall, the processes of Belief Identification functioned differently across the three domains. Regarding epistemological development, both age groups were more likely to judge their moral beliefs as absolute, relative to academic and/or sociocultural beliefs. While cognitive flexibility did not vary by age or domain, it was related to cognitive ability and individual dispositions toward open-mindedness. Moral beliefs elicited the highest personal meaning compared to academic and sociocultural beliefs. Significant interrelationships among components were found only in the moral domain. Specifically, adolescents showing the highest personal meaning in their beliefs clustered in two groups, at the highest and lowest levels of epistemological development. Although these groups were equivalent on age and IQ, the group higher in epistemological development showed more cognitive flexibility, whereas those in the lower group appeared more constrained. The findings have implications for both belief and identity formation, two critical aspects of adolescent development. The findings also have implications for education, for as adolescents encounter the differing perspectives of others, they must learn to value reflecting on their own beliefs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".