Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personality changes across the lifespan, but strong evidence regarding the mechanisms of personality change remains elusive. Studies of personality change and life events, for example, suggest that personality is difficult to change. But there are two key issues with assessing personality change. First, most change models optimize population-level, not individual-level, effects, which ignores heterogeneity in patterns of change. Second, optimizing change as mean-levels of self-reports fails to incorporate methods for assessing personality dynamics, such as using changes in variances of multivariate time series data that often proceed changes in mean-levels, making variance change detection a promising technique for the study of change. Using a sample of N = 388 participants (total N = 21,790) assessed weekly over 60 weeks, we test a permutation-based approach for detecting individual-level personality changes in multivariate time series and compare the results to event-based methods for assessing change. We find that a non-trivial number of participants show change over the course of the year but that there was little association between these change points and life events they experienced. We conclude by highlighting the importance in idiographic and dynamic investigations of change.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".