MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205979003 · doi:10.1177/10690727211044765

Academic Majors and HEXACO Personality

2021· article· en· W3205979003 on OpenAlexaff
Kibeom Lee, Michael C. Ashton, Christine Novitsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Career Assessment · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConscientiousnessFacet (psychology)PsychologyExtraversion and introversionOpenness to experienceSocial psychologyPersonalityBig Five personality traitsThe arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-reports on the HEXACO-PI-R scales were examined in relation to academic majors in post-secondary education ( N > 73,000). Openness to Experience showed the largest mean differences across academic major areas, with the Visual/Performing Arts and Humanities areas averaging higher and Health Sciences and Business/Commerce averaging lower. Emotionality showed the second largest differences, with the Engineering and Physical Sciences/Math areas averaging lower and Visual/Performing Arts averaging higher; these differences in Emotionality became smaller in within-sex analyses. In addition, Extraversion tended to be higher for Business/Commerce and lower for Physical Sciences/Math, while Honesty-Humility was lower for Business/Commerce. The facet-level analyses provided additional detail, as facet scales in the same domain sometimes showed considerably different means within a given academic major area. In one case, Visual/Performing Art majors averaged lower in Prudence, but higher in Perfectionism, even though both facets belong to the Conscientiousness domain.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.343 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Career AssessmentSame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207