MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992223649 · doi:10.1002/per.663

Comment on Anderson and Ones (2008)

2007· article· en· W1992223649 on OpenAlexaff
Lewis R. Goldberg, Kibeom Lee, Michael C. Ashton

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Personality · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyPsychoanalysisDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ‘erratum and addendum’ by Anderson and Ones (2008) does not state unambiguously that participants' Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) scale scores were incorrectly matched with their scores on the other inventories' scales, nor does it mention the existence of other errors in the scoring of the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) and Business Personality Indicator (BPI) scales. We demonstrate these errors and we recommend the retraction of the articles by Anderson and Ones (2003) and Ones and Anderson (2002). Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of PersonalitySame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207