MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2443305496 · doi:10.1037/gpr0000065

The Invest-and-Accrue Model of Conscientiousness

2016· article· en· W2443305496 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of General Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConscientiousnessPsychologyEconometricsEconomicsSocial psychologyPersonalityBig Five personality traits

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current review synthesizes and builds from the extant literature to help explain how and why conscientiousness predicts a vast array of positive life outcomes. Toward this end, we present the Invest-and-Accrue model of conscientiousness, which describes conscientiousness as a disposition toward “investing” in ways that allow for future success. The value of this model is made apparent in its applicability across different life domains, as well as its potential for describing how individuals can change on conscientiousness throughout the life span. Moreover, the model can help explain why conscientiousness is relatively unique from other Big Five traits in its ability to predict positive life outcomes seemingly in any domain. In sum, this model should prove valuable for researchers across psychological disciplines, by providing an organizing framework from which to make connections across findings in personality, social, developmental, organizational, and educational psychology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.335 · 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