MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940057910 · doi:10.1109/ecace.2019.8679214

Empirical Study on Personality Trait Classification by Food Related Preferences

2019· article· en· W2940057910 on OpenAlexaff
Tasfia Hoque, Raqeebir Rab, Khushnoor Rafsan Jani Alam, Saif Hasan Khan, M. A. Wadud Shuvro, Umme Zakia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Perception and Purchasing Behavior
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraitPersonalityComputer scienceEmpirical researchBig Five personality traitsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPsychologyStatisticsSocial psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human personality is a combination of the behavior, emotion, motivation and thinking pattern and has great impact on a person's life, health, and other related preferences. Food preferences provide rich information for studying personality of a person. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study to predict human personality based on restaurant review on food and other related preferences. We choose the category to `judge/perceive' from the 4 categories of 16 personality traits. A data set is built from a survey of 100 people based on a questionnaire about their food related behavior along with standard personality traits. A classification algorithm is proposed to classify the participant's personality from his/her food preference and surrounding environment on a restaurant, using reinforcement learning that utilizes temporal difference, model based, and on policy techniques. We compare our proposed classification results with standard classification solutions for personality detection to determine the performance accuracy of our proposed model.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConsumer Perception and Purchasing BehaviorFrench-language works237,207