Bibliographic record
Abstract
Your patient is one person today, quite another person tomorrow, and still another person next week, next month, next year. Five years from now, ten and twenty years from now, he is yet another person. We all have a certain general background, that is true, but we are different persons each day that we live. Milton H. Erickson It is easier to act yourself into a new way of thinking than to think yourself into a new way of acting. O. Hobart Mowrer Defining the question Before people address the subject of altering and ameliorating personality, they need to establish that personality change is even possible. Scientists, students, and lay people have repeatedly asked the question: barring serious brain lesions and disease, can an individual's personality change in more than a superficial sense? Answers have varied depending largely on (a) how broad a definition of personality one uses and (b) the scientific lens through which personality is examined. The answers most often heard start off in the affirmative. Some developmental psychologists will answer, “Of course personality changes. After all, personality is the product of numerous interactions between a changing body and a changing environment. As they both change so does one's psyche.” Others would answer, “If you accept that no one is born with a personality, you must conclude that humans either acquire it spontaneously and fully effloresced at some moment in time (hardly likely) or that its development is a gradual and largely contingency-based process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".