Toward a unified science of personality coherence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gordon W. Allport (1937) considered the coherence of personality to be a matter of degree and, as such, an individual difference. Although considered by some to be the âcentral, unique chargeâ of personality psychology (Cervone & Shoda, 1999, p. 3), the study of personality coherence has been dispersed across different theoretical communities. We review how personality coherence has been defined and measured within the following five contemporary theoretical communities: the multivariate community (who focus upon the individualâs profile of global trait dispositions), the social-cognitive community (who focus upon the individualâs contextualized self-structures), the personological community (who focus upon the individualâs unique and ongoing life story), the cybernetic community (who focus upon the individualâs goal hierarchy), and the organismic community (who focus upon the individualâs sense of self). We conclude by reflecting upon the extent to which the five perspectives converge upon an underlying self-epistemic function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".