MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2005· article· en· W2112253661 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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