MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134037942 · doi:10.1002/per.411

The structure of the French personality lexicon

2001· article· en· W2134037942 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen Boies, Kibeom Lee, Michael C. Ashton, Sophie Pascal, Adelheid A. M. Nicol

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Personality · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaUniversité de MontréalBrock UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAgreeablenessConscientiousnessPersonalityLexiconExtraversion and introversionBig Five personality traitsFacet (psychology)Big Five personality traits and cultureIntellectAlternative five model of personalitySocial psychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The structure of the French personality lexicon was investigated. Self‐ratings on the 388 most frequently used French personality‐descriptive adjectives were obtained from 415 French‐speaking people. The scree plot of eigenvalues indicated six large factors. In the varimax‐rotated six‐factor solution, the four largest factors, in order of size, corresponded fairly closely to the Big Five dimensions of Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness. The fifth factor was similar to the Honesty dimension found in several other languages. The sixth factor was defined by Imagination‐related terms, but not by Intellect‐related terms. Solutions involving one to five factors were also investigated and correlations between the factors that emerged from these different solutions are presented. The results are discussed in relation to other lexical studies of personality structure. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations87
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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