MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999498297 · doi:10.2190/9ep8-17p8-ekg7-66ad

The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Smoking: A Meta-Analysis

2006· review· en· W1999498297 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Drug Education · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMeta-analysisClinical psychologyPersonalityFactor (programming language)Big Five personality traitsSocial psychologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes a meta-analysis of the relationship between the Five-Factor Model of personality and smoking. The results, based on nine studies and a total of 4730 participants, show that smoking was associated with the following five-factor traits: low conscientiousness, low agreeableness, and high neuroticism. Smokers outside Canada and the United States had significantly higher extraversion than nonsmokers, while extraversion was not significantly related to smoking in Canada and the United States. The results, which for the first time quantified precisely through meta-analysis the association between the five-factor model of personality and smoking, provide support for the relevance of the Five-Factor Model to an important behavior and for the trait element of Gilbert's (1995) Situation-Trait-Adaptation-Response model of smoking. The results also suggest possible avenues for smoking prevention and treatment and for further smoking research.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.237 · 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