MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220786327 · doi:10.1037/pas0001119

Assessment of “los pequeños” Big Five: The Spanish version of the Big Five Personality Trait Short Questionnaire in adolescents.

2022· article· en· W4220786327 on OpenAlexaff
Generós Ortet, Laura Mezquita, Julien Morizot, Jordi Ortet-Walker, Manuel I. Ibáñez

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersDepartament de Matemàtiques, Universitat Jaume IUniversitat Jaume IMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades
KeywordsPsychologyAgreeablenessConscientiousnessFacet (psychology)Extraversion and introversionPersonalityBig Five personality traitsOpenness to experienceStructural equation modelingPsychometricsTraitMeasurement invarianceClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyConfirmatory factor analysisSocial psychologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

< .001). Finally, most of the expected associations between the BFPTSQ scales and the criterion measures (internalizing and externalizing symptom scales, life satisfaction, and academic performance) were confirmed, widely replicating the results found in the development of the original questionnaire. This study supports the construct validity of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability scales in Spanish-speaking adolescents. However, openness did not emerge as a well-defined factor in the present sample. The questionnaire seems to be a useful and readable measure for research and, potentially, for other applications such as clinical use. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological AssessmentSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207