MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019602618 · doi:10.1177/0013164404267277

Validity Studies Psychometric Properties of Scores on the French and Korean Versions of the Hexaco Personality Inventory

2004· article· en· W2019602618 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen Boies, Tae-Yong Yoo, Annik Ebacher, Kibeom Lee, Michael C. Ashton

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational and Psychological Measurement · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalBrock UniversityUniversity of CalgaryConcordia University
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsPsychologyPersonalityInternal consistencyPsychometricsPersonality Assessment InventoryCalifornia Psychological InventoryPersonality testBig Five personality traitsScale (ratio)Test validitySocial psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent lexical studies of personality structure suggest that there are six independent major dimensions of personality. TheHEXACOPersonality Inventory (HEXACO-PI), a new questionnaire that measures these six lexically derived personality constructs, was examined in two different cultural contexts using samples of 149 Francophone and 211 Korean respondents. Scores on the scales of the French and Korean versions of the HEXACO-PI were shown to have acceptable psychometric properties, including appropriate score distributions, high internal-consistency reliabilities, and low scale intercorrelations. In addition, the HEXACO-PI variables showed the expected pattern of correlations with markers of the Big Five and of lexical Honesty-Humility.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.473
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.082 · 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

Citations39
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational and Psychological MeasurementSame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207