Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extraversion, a Big Five personality trait, has been identified as a significant factor in COVID-19 positive coping—yet, relevant research is conflicting. Studies have not situated the influence of extraversion within a geographical and historical context. Thus, a sound base is lacking for assessing when opposing results regarding extraversion and COVID-19 positive coping are likely to result. Furthermore, extraversion with respect to COVID-19 coping has not been considered concerning other-directed learning in contrast to self-directed learning. To establish a sufficiently sound base, an examination of the range of high-ranking Google Scholar results on extraversion and COVID-19 coping from different countries during the pandemic’s various waves—pre and post vaccine introduction—is undertaken. The same are then considered for insights into public opinion. Following, extraversion is compared with other-directed learning and differentiated from self-directed learning. An understanding is thus presented for assessing when extraversion will necessarily be an effective personality trait for COVID-19 positive coping and when it will not. Extraversion’s effect will be found inherently inconsistent for identifying COVID-19 positive coping as a result, because of its dependence on other-directed learning. The conclusion: COVID-19 positive coping stability is contingent on personal values that guide self-directed learning, rather than other-directed extraversion.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".