MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339162830 · doi:10.1177/1059601115608027

A Two-Wave Study of Self-Monitoring Personality, Social Network Churn, and In-Degree Centrality in Close Friendship and General Socializing Networks

2015· article· en· W2339162830 on OpenAlexaff
Arjun Bhardwaj, Israr Qureshi, Alison M. Konrad, Seung Hwan Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueGroup & Organization Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentralityFriendshipPersonalitySocial network (sociolinguistics)PsychologySocial network analysisSocial psychologyHomophilyComputer scienceSociologySocial capital

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the role of self-monitoring personality in shaping network change in two important types of social relationships. In a two-wave social network study, we find that individuals with higher levels of self-monitoring derive persistent personality-linked in-degree centrality benefits in the general socializing network but have fading benefits over time in the close friendship network. Simultaneous examination of the formation and dissolution of relationships over time (network churn) reveals that this pattern of network change is shaped by differential reactions of relationship partners to individuals based upon level of self-monitoring in the two network types. Overall, by incorporating the dynamic reactions of relationship partners, the findings contribute to the understanding of the complex relationship between personality and social network development.

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)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations33
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGroup & Organization ManagementSame topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207