Designing a model for predicting quality of life based on personality traits and cultural intelligence among Persian-speaking immigrants in France and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le travail statistique a finalement ete effectue avec 317 personnes. Les outils de collecte de donnees etaient l'inventaire de personnalite NEO PI-R, la version abregee du questionnaire de l’OMS sur la qualite de vie et le questionnaire d'intelligence culturelle. Pour l'analyse des donnees, des statistiques descriptives et inferentielles (analyse de correlation, regression et equations structurelles) ont ete utilisees. Les resultats montrent que les traits de personnalite ont une correlation significative avec la qualite de vie. Parmi ces traits, il y a une correlation negative avec le nevrosisme et une correlation positive avec les quatre autres facteurs. Par ailleurs, tous les facteurs de la variable « qualite de vie » presentent une correlation positive significative avec toutes les composantes de l’intelligence culturelle. En ce qui concerne les indices de qualite de l'ajustement du modele final, nous pouvons affirmer que le modele fourni et ses coefficients de regression montrent que ces coefficients expliqueraient avec precision la prediction de la qualite de vie basee sur les traits de personnalite et l'intelligence culturelle.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".