MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586232658 · doi:10.1017/s0730938400014805

Resolving Controversy Over Birth Order and Personality: By Debate or By Design?

2000· article· en· W2586232658 on OpenAlexaff
Delroy L. Paulhus, Paul Wehr, Paul D. Trapnell

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitics and the Life Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTownsendRelation (database)Order (exchange)PersonalityPropositionPsychoanalysisPsychologySociologyCriminologyEpistemologyPhilosophyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The notion that birth order bears a systematic relation to personality was commonly thought to have succumbed to the formidable attack from Ernst and Angst (1983). The 1996 publication of Frank Sulloway's book Born to Rebel , however, breathed new life into a proposition that most social scientists thought was a dead horse. In response to the book, Townsend (this issue) insists that Sulloway's extraordinary measures to revive this dead horse were unwarranted. Apparently fearing that too many readers have taken the book seriously, Townsend attacks both the contemporary and historical evidence offered by Sulloway.

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)0.167
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.353
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1670.353
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.043
Scholarly communication0.0150.025
Open science0.0070.010
Research integrity0.0090.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.315
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitics and the Life SciencesSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207