An Investigation of Personality Types within the HEXACO Personality Framework
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
Recent research aimed at identifying distinct personality types has generally searched for such types in the space of the dimensions of the Big Five or Five-Factor model. We extended this search to the space of the HEXACO model of personality structure, using data from a large community sample of adults. In a series of cluster analyses involving 3 to 7 clusters, the proportion of reliable variance in HEXACO dimensions that was accounted for by the types – i.e., clusters – was small, never exceeding that accounted for by clusters generated from random multivariate normal data. The predictive validity of the types and the dimensions was compared with respect to aggregated peer reports on the Big Five personality factors, and results showed that even the largest sets of HEXACO types accounted for only half as much variance as did the HEXACO dimensions. The results provide no evidence of meaningful personality types within the space of the HEXACO framework.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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