MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Personality Traits Beyond the Big Five: Are They Within the HEXACO Space?

2005· article· en· W2112253661 on OpenAlexaff
Kibeom Lee, Babatunde Ogunfowora, Michael C. Ashton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig Five personality traitsFacet (psychology)PsychologyBig Five personality traits and culturePersonalityAlternative five model of personalityVariance (accounting)Personality Assessment Inventory16PF QuestionnaireHonestySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paunonen (2002) recently developed the Supernumerary Personality Inventory (SPI), a measure of 10 traits that have low loadings within the space of the Big Five personality factors. If the SPI personality traits are representative of the domain of non-Big Five personality traits, then the major source of the variance in the SPI traits would be expected to correlate strongly with the sixth factor of personality, Honesty-Humility. We tested this hypothesis using self-report measures (N = 200) of the SPI traits, of the Big Five, and of the new six-dimensional ("HEXACO") structure. Results indicated that the first unrotated factor underlying the 10 SPI traits was heavily saturated with variance from Honesty-Humility (r = .65). Nevertheless, the 10 SPI traits contained substantial amounts of unique variance not accounted for by the HEXACO or the Big Five variables, highlighting the importance of the facet-level assessment of personality 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations226
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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