A comparison of the relationship between extraversion and argumentativeness in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand
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
The association between argumentativeness and extraversion, while well established in the United States, has not been examined cross-culturally.Therefore, this study conducts a crosscultural comparison of this association with nationally representative samples from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.The results confirm previous research in the U.S. and showed U.S. participants scored highest on tendency to approach arguments and extraversion, and lowest on tendency to avoid arguments, while New Zealanders scored the lowest on tendency to approach arguments and extraversion.These results expand our understanding of argumentativeness, illustrating the positive association between argumentativeness and extraversion is not a uniquely U.S. phenomenon, and expanding our understanding of argumentativeness to the Canadian context.The differences found between countries suggest future research explore how other factors might explain these differences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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