MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367400188 · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2023.112228

A network analysis of relationships between the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF) and the Big Five personality traits in Italian workers

2023· article· en· W4367400188 on OpenAlexaff
Annamaria Di Fabio, Donald H. Saklofske, Alessio Gori, Andrea Svicher

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Individual Differences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEmotional intelligenceEmotionalityPersonalityTraitCentralityBig Five personality traitsPersonality psychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the relationship between the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF) and the ten facets of the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ) via network analysis. The TEIQue-SF and the BFQ were administered to 751 Italian workers. Both centrality indexes (Expected Influence and Node Predictability) and bridge dimensions were calculated. Stability and accuracy were also checked to ensure the reliability of the findings. The BFQ facets of Perseverance (Consciousness) had the highest centrality while Emotion control (Emotion stability, the opposite of Neuroticism) showed high centrality. Among TEIQue-SF dimensions, Sociability followed by Emotionality and Self-Control had high centrality. TEIQue-SF Emotionality and Sociability had a bridge function. Both TEIQue-SF Emotionality and Sociability and both BFQ Perseverance and Emotion control are relevant in linking emotional intelligence and personality traits. Although further studies are needed, the network analysis represents a promising approach in providing a more detailed analysis of the relationships between dimensions of emotional intelligence and facets of personality traits in workers.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.138 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality and Individual DifferencesSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207