MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133018308

"It's Not Me, It's You": The Mechanisms and Process of Perceiver Effects in People with Interpersonal Problems

2016· dissertation· W7133018308 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole Annalise Cosentino

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2016
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsOntario College of Art and Design
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpersonal communicationPersonalityInterpersonal relationshipInterpersonal perceptionImpression formationSocial relationSocial perceptionInterpersonal interaction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interpersonal problems are intrinsic to personality disorders. However, there is still little known about the mechanisms underlying interpersonal dysfunction. The purpose of the current thesis was to explore one likely mechanism: perceiver effects, idiosyncrasies in the way an individual tends to see other people. To determine whether interpersonal problems were linked to perceiver effects, two studies were conducted. In Study 1, participants rated the personality of four people in video-taped interactions. In Study 2, unacquainted classmates were assigned to groups that met throughout the semester and rated each group member at first impression and after four months of acquaintanceship. Study 1 showed largely null effects. Study 2 demonstrated that interpersonal problems predicted stable and mostly negative perceiver effects across time. The current program of research is the first to demonstrate that interpersonal problems predict a differentiated and stable profile of perceiver effects during social interactions, which has important clinical implications.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.005

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.346 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207