MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950233054 · doi:10.1177/0956797617719083

Educational Attainment and Personality Are Genetically Intertwined

2017· article· en· W2950233054 on OpenAlexaff
René Mõttus, Anu Realo, Uku Vainik, Jüri Allïk, Tõnu Esko

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyBig Five personality traitsOpenness to experiencePersonalityEducational attainmentNeuroticismTraitVariance (accounting)Big Five personality traits and cultureFacet (psychology)Alternative five model of personalityDevelopmental psychologyBehavioural geneticsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heritable variance in psychological traits may reflect genetic and biological processes that are not necessarily specific to these particular traits but pertain to a broader range of phenotypes. We tested the possibility that the personality domains of the five-factor model and their 30 facets, as rated by people themselves and their knowledgeable informants, reflect polygenic influences that have been previously associated with educational attainment. In a sample of more than 3,000 adult Estonians, education polygenic scores (EPSs), which are interpretable as estimates of molecular-genetic propensity for education, were correlated with various personality traits, particularly from the neuroticism and openness domains. The correlations of personality traits with phenotypic educational attainment closely mirrored their correlations with EPS. Moreover, EPS predicted an aggregate personality trait tailored to capture the maximum amount of variance in educational attainment almost as strongly as it predicted the attainment itself. We discuss possible interpretations and implications of these findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations57
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207