MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Philosopher‐King or Polarizing Politician? A Personality Profile of Barack Obama

2011· article· en· W2119734301 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David G. Winter

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Psychology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Testing and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Pharmacy, University of MichiganLomonosov Moscow State UniversityInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsPresidencyPersonalityPresidential systemPsychologySocial psychologyPersonality profileStyle (visual arts)Big Five personality traitsSociologyPolitical scienceLawPoliticsArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although U.S. President Barack Obama received extensive media coverage during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign and later during the first two years of his presidency, many people still perceive him as elusive, or even contradictory. Using biographical facts and objective at‐a‐distance measures, this article presents a personality profile of Obama. The profile is organized around a fourfold conception of personality. Personality can be understood as the residue of past and present social contexts and is publicly visible as traits or consistencies of style. Internal beliefs, values, and other cognitions, as well as implicit motives, can only be indirectly observed and so are measured through content analysis. The resulting profile is used to explain some outcomes, as well as paradoxes and puzzles of Obama's performance as president. It also suggests predictions about the future course of his presidency.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.330
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.132 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations43
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitical PsychologySame topicPsychological Testing and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207