Being Flexible in Zuckerman’s Alternative Personality Space
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Psychological flexibility has attracted significant research interest but surprisingly, investigations about the relationships with personality traits from the biological models of personality have been neglected. The present study therefore aimed to shed more light on the nature of the relationship between psychological flexibility and personality dimensions from Zuckerman’s Alternative Five-Factor Model (AFFM) based on a sample of 398 adults. Psychological flexibility was negatively associated with neuroticism and positively associated with extraversion, aggressiveness, and sensation seeking. Lower neuroticism, higher extraversion, and being a woman significantly predicted approximately 39% of the variance in psychological flexibility. A joint exploratory factor analysis found psychological flexibility located in the neuroticism factor of personality. Findings show that the AFFM can be used as an adequate personality model in explaining the nature of psychological flexibility-inflexibility based on the associations between their sub-processes and lower levels of personality traits. The nature of the relationships between psychological flexibility with both sensation seeking and aggressiveness requires closer investigation.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it