MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328381794 · doi:10.5964/jspp.v4i1.562

American state gun law strength and state resident differences in neuroticism levels

2016· article· en· W2328381794 on OpenAlexaff
Stewart J. H. McCann, Chantelle Zawila

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social and Political Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGun Ownership and Violence Research
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroticismPopulationState (computer science)DemographyPsychologySocioeconomic statusPoison controlPersonalityLawSocial psychologyPolitical scienceMedicineSociologyMathematicsMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relations between state gun law strength and state-aggregated levels of Republican leaning, gun ownership, and resident Big Five neuroticism (based on 619,397 residents nationally) were determined in a state-level analysis of the 50 American states using multiple regression strategies with state socioeconomic status, white population percent, and urban population percent statistically controlled. In a standard hierarchical model with state gun law strength as the criterion, the three demographic variables accounted for 44.4% of the variance and the Big Five accounted for another 21.9%. When the Big Five entered stepwise after the demographics, neuroticism was the sole significant personality predictor, accounting for another 13.4% of the variance. Greater state gun law strength was associated with higher state resident neuroticism. Further hierarchical regression analyses showed that state Republican leaning and gun ownership could account separately and jointly for significant variance in state gun law strength but not with state resident neuroticism controlled.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social and Political PsychologySame topicGun Ownership and Violence ResearchFrench-language works237,207