MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304632964 · doi:10.5964/ps.7269

Personality Neuroscience: An Emerging Field With Bright Prospects

2022· article· en· W4304632964 on OpenAlexaff
Colin G. DeYoung, Roger E. Beaty, Erhan Genç, Robert D. Latzman, Luca Passamonti, Michelle N. Servaas, Alexander J. Shackman, Luke D. Smillie, R. Nathan Spreng, Essi Viding, Jan Wacker

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsNeuroimagingPsychologyNeurosciencePersonalityModalitiesField (mathematics)Cognitive sciencePopulationSociologySocial psychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personality neuroscience is the study of persistent psychological individual differences, typically in the general population, using neuroscientific methods. It has the potential to shed light on the neurobiological mechanisms underlying individual differences and their manifestation in ongoing behavior and experience. The field was inaugurated many decades ago, yet has only really gained momentum in the last two, as suitable technologies have become widely available. Personality neuroscience employs a broad range of methods, including molecular genetics, pharmacological assays or manipulations, electroencephalography, and various neuroimaging modalities, such as magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography. Although exciting progress is being made in this young field, much remains unknown. In this brief review, we discuss discoveries that have been made, methodological challenges and advances, and important questions that remain to be answered. We also discuss best practices for personality neuroscience research and promising future directions for the field.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations63
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality ScienceSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207