MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909458162 · doi:10.1109/iemcon.2018.8614854

Predicting Personality Traits Using Smartphone Sensor Data and App Usage Data

2018· article· en· W2909458162 on OpenAlexaff
Naveen K. Kambham, Kevin G. Stanley, Scott Bell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStylized factPersonalityComputer scienceBig Five personality traitsFidelityBig dataData modelingArtificial intelligenceMobile phoneHuman–computer interactionMachine learningData sciencePsychologyData miningSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human behavior is complex - often defying explanation using traditional mathematical models. Intermediate forms, such as those gleaned from personality inventories can be employed to predict stylized aspects of behavior. Novel sensing systems have made tracking behavior possible with unprecedented fidelity, leading to the hypothesis that intermediate psychological models might be derived directly from records of behavior. Being able to extract a personal profile or personality type from data directly obtainable from a mobile phone without participant interaction could have applications for marketing, or for initiating social or health interventions. In this paper, we model a well-established personality inventory, the Big Five framework. Daily routines of participants were measured from parameters readily available from smartphones and supervised machine learning was used to create a model from that data.

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)0.004
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
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207