MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065984933 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.880

Flux, Pulse, and Spin: Dynamic Additions to the Personality Lexicon.

2004· article· en· W2065984933 on OpenAlexaff
D. S. Moskowitz, David C. Zuroff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality and Social Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNeuroticismPersonalityExtraversion and introversionFlux (metallurgy)Interpersonal communicationSocial psychologyBig Five personality traitsDevelopmental psychologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personality constructs were proposed to describe intraindividual variability in interpersonal behavior. Flux refers to variability about an individual's mean score on an interpersonal dimension and was examined for the 4 poles of the interpersonal circumplex. Pulse and spin refer to variability about an individual's mean extremity and mean angular coordinate on the interpersonal circumplex. These constructs were measured using event-contingent recording. Latent state-trait analyses indicated high stability of flux in submissive, agreeable, and quarrelsome behaviors and some stability in the flux of dominance. Further analyses indicated moderate to high stability in pulse and spin. Neuroticism predicted greater pulse, spin, and submissive behavior flux. Extraversion predicted greater flux in agreeable behavior. In contrast, Agreeableness predicted reduced spin and quarrelsome behavior flux. Social environmental variables predicted greater flux in dominant behavior. Flux, pulse, and spin provide reliable and distinctive additions to the vocabulary for describing individual differences.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.381
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations204
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality and Social PsychologySame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207