MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104750295 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.1014

Personality in cyberspace: Personal web sites as media for personality expressions and impressions.

2006· article· en· W2104750295 on OpenAlexaff
Bernd Marcus, Franz Machilek, Astrid Schütz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality and Social Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsOpenness to experiencePersonalityBig Five personality traitsPsychologyExtraversion and introversionNarcissismSocial psychologyPopulationPersonality psychologyWeb siteWorld Wide WebThe InternetDemographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examined the personality of owners of personal Web sites based on self-reports, visitors' ratings, and the content of the Web sites. The authors compared a large sample of Web site owners with population-wide samples on the Big Five dimensions of personality. Controlling for demographic differences, the average Web site owner reported being slightly less extraverted and more open to experience. Compared with various other samples, Web site owners did not generally differ on narcissism, self-monitoring, or self-esteem, but gender differences on these traits were often smaller in Web site owners. Self-other agreement was highest with Openness to Experience, but valid judgments of all Big Five dimensions were derived from Web sites providing rich information. Visitors made use of quantifiable features of the Web site to infer personality, and the cues they utilized partly corresponded to self-reported traits.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations307
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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