Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to Barak and English (2002), the use of Internet-based psychological tests is an extension of computerized testing which emerged in the 1980s (p. 65). As with computerized testing, online psychological tests provide almost instant results since Likert-style questions can be scored by the computer without additional human intervention. Additionally, customized profiles can be presented along with the resulting scores, enabling the user to draw additional meaning from the selected instrument. An additional benefit of Internet-based measures is the potential for web sites to serve as clearinghouses containing a myriad of instruments, available to online users for free or on a subscription basis. As a result, numerous online repositories have been developed which offer a variety of psychological tests, ranging from fully validated instruments to individually-designed scales. One of the more popular test libraries is the Queendom.com site run by Plumeus, Inc. Since its founding in 1996, over 90 million people have completed over 400 million tests in nine different languages at the Queendom web site (http://www.queendom.com). According to the Queendom home page, the site contains “114 professionally developed and validated psychological tests, 111 Just-for-Fun tests, [and] 230 mind games and quizzes.” The five most popular psychological tests are the Classical Intelligence Test, the Self-Esteem Test, the Emotional Intelligence Test, the Communication Skills Test, and the Type-A Personality Test. Just-for-Fun test include such measures as the Snob Test, the Blind Date Test, and the Party Guest Test. Mind games and quizzes include puzzles, math problems, memory games, and trivia tests.Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".