Positive Impression Management and Its Influence on the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: A Comparison of Analog and Differential Prevalence Group Designs.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participants (n = 22) completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) as part of an authentic job application. Protocols produced by this group were compared with "analog" participants (n = 23) who completed the NEO PI-R under standard instructions and again under instructions designed to mimic the test-taking scenario of the job applicants (the "fake-good" condition). Participants completing the NEO PI-R under fake-good instructions and the job applicants scored lower on the Neuroticism and higher on the Extraversion scales than did the participants responding under standard instructions. Analog participants in the fake-good condition scored higher on the Extraversion and lower on the Agreeableness scales than did the job applicants. These results suggest that outcomes from analog designs are generalizable to real-world samples where response dissimulation is probable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it