MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792629450

Personality as a predictor of performance in the Canadian Armed Forces : establishing cut-off scores

2017· article· en· W2792629450 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carrie N. Topping

Bibliographic record

VenueSaint Mary's University Institutional Repository (Saint Mary's University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary History and Strategy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalityPsychologySocial psychologyApplied psychologyPersonality Assessment InventoryClinical psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Trait Self Descriptive Personality Inventory (TSD-PI) has been administered to applicants of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) as a selection measure since 2013.The purpose of this study was to present the theoretical and empirical justification for the establishment of cut-off scores for the conscientiousness and emotional stability subscales of the measure, used as predictors of training and job performance outcome criteria.Predictor variable data were collected from 7252 serving members with training results and 1232 with job performance information.Regression results revealed no significant relationships between the personality subscales and training results; however, performance data suggested the value of establishing distinct cut-off scores for officers, non-commissioned members (NCMs) and NCM family groups, categories comprised of occupations sharing common sets of abilities or competencies.Criterion-related and norm-referenced techniques provided recommendations for the establishment of baseline scores.Study limitations, implications and future research directions are discussed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSaint Mary's University Institutional Repository (Saint Mary's University)Same topicMilitary History and StrategyFrench-language works237,207