MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993707496 · doi:10.1002/per.759

Trait and source factors in HEXACO‐PI‐R self‐ and observer reports

2010· article· en· W1993707496 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael C. Ashton, Kibeom Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Personality · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryBrock University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyFacet (psychology)TraitObserver (physics)Social psychologyPersonalityBig Five personality traitsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the joint factor structure of self‐reports and observer reports on the facet scales of the HEXACO Personality Inventory—Revised in a sample of 563 pairs of well‐acquainted persons. In separate analyses based on a targeted orthogonal rotation and on a CFA model, we identified six trait factors (representing the HEXACO dimensions) plus two source factors (representing the favourability bias of self‐reports and observer reports, respectively). All six trait factors were recovered with substantial loadings for the appropriate facet scales. The content of the self‐report and observer report source factors suggested that the former mainly involved ‘egoistic’ or ‘agentic’ biases and the latter mainly involved ‘moralistic’ or ‘communal’ biases. Copyright © 2010 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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations86
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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