The Dynamics of Personality States, Goals, and Well-Being
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examine the within-individual dynamics of Big-5 personality states over time in people's daily lives. They focus on the magnitude of this within-individual variability, and the associations between personality states, short-term goals, and subjective well-being states. A total of 101 undergraduate students participated in a 10-day interval-contingent diary study. The authors' findings, based on multilevel procedures, establish a considerable amount of within-individual variability that is both (a) equal or larger than that observed between individuals and (b) larger or similar to other constructs assessed with a state approach (e.g., self-esteem and mood). In addition, both neuroticism and extraversion states are systematically related to the short-term pursuit of approach-avoidance goals. Finally, support was obtained for the mediating role of both neuroticism and extraversion states of the association between goals and subjective well-being. In sum, the authors' findings testify to the importance and utility of studying within-individual variability in personality states over time.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it