Manifestación de las diferencias individuales en Extraversión y Sensibilidad a la Recompensa en el volumen cerebral
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La medicion de los rasgos de personalidad ha sido definida desde diferentes perspectivas teoricas, entre las cuales la Teoria de los Cinco Factores (Costa y McCrae, 1989) y la Teoria de la Sensibilidad a la Recompensa (Gray, 1970; 1987; Gray y McNaughton, 2000) tienen actualmente una particular relevancia. El modelo de los Cinco Factores describe la personalidad en base a las dimensiones de Extraversion (E), Neuroticismo (N), Responsabilidad (C), Amabilidad (A) y Apertura a la experiencia (O), que a su vez estan compuestas por varias facetas, seis por cada dimension, referidas a diferentes aspectos que concretan el contenido de las mismas. Cada una de estas dimensiones se conceptualiza como un continuo bipolar. Por ejemplo, la dimension Extraversion esta definida en un polo por la extraversion y en el polo opuesto por la introversion (Wright y cols, 2006). La dimension de Extraversion resulta de particular interes, ya que muchas de las aproximaciones taxonomicas actuales a la personalidad y gran parte de los inventarios de personalidad mas conocidos incluyen alguna definicion de un rasgo similar que podemos identificar con la extraversion (Watson & Clark, 1997).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".