MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383736207 · doi:10.3390/informatics10030058

Digital Citizenship and the Big Five Personality Traits

2023· article· en· W4383736207 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Roberts, Randy Connolly, Joel Conley, Janet Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueInformatics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
FundersUniverza v LjubljaniSouthern Cross UniversityMount Royal UniversityFaculty of Science and Technology, Pokhara University
KeywordsAgreeablenessConscientiousnessBig Five personality traitsOpenness to experiencePersonalityCitizenshipHierarchical structure of the Big FiveExtraversion and introversionSocial psychologyPsychologyNeuroticismAlternative five model of personalityPoliticsSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past two decades, the internet has become an increasingly important venue for political expression, community building, and social activism. Scholars in a wide range of disciplines have endeavored to understand and measure how these transformations have affected individuals’ civic attitudes and behaviors. The Digital Citizenship Scale (original and revised form) has become one of the most widely used instruments for measuring and evaluating these changes, but to date, no study has investigated how digital citizenship behaviors relate to exogenous variables. Using the classic Big Five Factor model of personality (Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism), this study investigated how personality traits relate to the key components of digital citizenship. Survey results were gathered across three countries (n = 1820), and analysis revealed that personality traits map uniquely on to digital citizenship in comparison to traditional forms of civic engagement. The implications of these findings are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformaticsSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207