The Use of a Five Factor Model in Equine Personality Research
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
In order to test the validity of a Five Factor Model of personality on horses, a questionnaire was replicated from a previous study, with an added option of don’t know to the traditional 5-point Likert scale. Raters responded to seventeen items of the 60-item scale with don’t know responses greater than 10% of the time and these seventeen items were subsequently removed from the study. A Principal Components Analysis was used with the remaining items, resulting in eight factors: Neuroticism, Active, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Openness, Social Extraversion, Temperamental, and Disciplined. These components correspond well to the five components extracted in the original study, indicating good reliability of the scale. However, 17 items from the original questionnaire were deemed irrelevant by raters, indicating a threat to validity. Though the remaining items were able to be used in analyses, further studies should examine if these are in fact the most effective items to use in the investigation of equine personality.//
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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