The HEXACO Personality Factors in the Indigenous Personality Lexicons of English and 11 Other Languages
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
Two studies tested the correspondence between six dimensions obtained in lexical studies of personality structure and the proposed HEXACO personality framework. Study 1 examined the English personality lexicon using 449 adjectives selected according to rated frequency of use in personality description. Six validimax-rotated factors derived from adjective self-ratings showed strong convergent and weak discriminant correlations with questionnaire markers of the HEXACO factors; the six adjective dimensions were also recovered from peer ratings. In Study 2, lay judges rated the conceptual similarity between HEXACO factor descriptions and adjective lists summarizing the six indigenous lexical personality factors of each of 12 languages. Across languages, a pattern of strong convergent and weak discriminant similarity ratings was observed; similarity ratings for the English factors of Study 1 were comparable to those for other languages' factors. Results indicate that the six dimensions of the HEXACO framework are recovered from the personality lexicons of various languages.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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