MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3160121571 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/sqh98

Regional personality differences predict variation in COVID-19 infections and social distancing behavior

2020· preprint· en· W3160121571 on OpenAlexaff
Heinrich Peters, Friedrich M. Götz, Tobias Ebert, Sandrine R. Müller, Jason Rentfrow, Samuel D. Gosling, Martin Obschonka, Daniel P. Ames, Jeff Potter, Sandra Matz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpenness to experienceAgreeablenessConscientiousnessNeuroticismPersonalityExtraversion and introversionPsychologyBig Five personality traitsPandemicDemographic economicsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Social psychologyDiseaseEconomicsMedicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed stark regional variation in the spread of the virus. Combining self-reported personality data (3.5M people) with COVID-19 prevalence rates and behavioral mobility observations (29M people) in the US and Germany, we show that regional personality differences can help explain the early transmission of COVID-19; this is true even after controlling for a wide array of important socio-demographic, economic, and pandemic-related factors. We use specification curve analyses to test the effects of regional personality in a robust and unbiased way. The results indicate that in the early stages of COVID-19, Openness-to-experience acted as a risk factor while Neuroticism acted as a protective factor. The findings also highlight the complexity of the pandemic by showing that the effects of regional personality can differ (i) across countries (Extraversion), (ii) over time (Openness) and (iii) from those previously observed at the individual level (Agreeableness and Conscientiousness).

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)0.005
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCOVID-19 and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→