MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082224455 · doi:10.1521/pedi.2005.19.3.303

The Lexical Approach to the Study of Personality Structure: Toward the Identification of Cross–Culturally Replicable Dimensions of Personality Variation

2005· review· en· W2082224455 on OpenAlexaff
Michael C. Ashton, Kibeom Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Disorders · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAgreeablenessPersonalityExtraversion and introversionVariation (astronomy)Big Five personality traitsSocial psychologyNeuroticismBig Five personality traits and culturePerspective (graphical)Developmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The structure of personality variation is discussed from the perspective of the lexical approach, which is based on the examination of relations among personality-descriptive adjectives that are indigenous to various languages. The results of this approach--which reveal a cross-culturally replicated set of six dimensions--are described. Specifically, the obtained structure corresponds rather closely to the Five-Factor Model, but differs from that model in the nature of the Agreeableness and Emotionality/Neuroticism factors and also in the existence of a sixth factor known as Honesty-Humility. It is suggested that the emergence of this structure provides support for attempts to establish a cross-culturally generalizable structural model that could summarize normal and abnormal personality variation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations82
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality DisordersSame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207