MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125702851 · doi:10.1177/0022022108323783

Six Turkish Personality Factors and the HEXACO Model of Personality Structure

2008· article· en· W2125702851 on OpenAlexaff
S. Arzu Wasti, Kibeom Lee, Michael C. Ashton, Oya Somer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurkishLexiconPersonalityOpenness to experiencePsychologyOperationalizationBig Five personality traitsExploratory factor analysisSet (abstract data type)LinguisticsSocial psychologyPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the six largest dimensions of the Turkish personality lexicon, as derived from the personality-descriptive terms of Goldberg and Somer's (2000) data set. The six Turkish lexical factors show close correspondences of content to all six dimensions observed in several other languages. In a new data set, the authors then correlate factor scores representing these indigenous Turkish dimensions with the scales of the HEXACO Personality Inventory, which operationalize the six cross-language factors. Results show a pattern of strong convergent and weak discriminant correlations. Overall, findings suggest that the cross-language six-dimensional structure of personality description does generalize to the Turkish lexicon. The Turkish structure also reveals some interesting emic features, particularly with regard to the content of the Openness to Experience factor.

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)0.004
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations57
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cross-Cultural PsychologySame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207