MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417349647 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1589709

The influence of conscientiousness and context on the emotional response during understanding

2025· article· en· W4417349647 on OpenAlexaff
Jenny Jun, Milan Lazic, Earl Woodruff

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConscientiousnessContext (archaeology)Task (project management)Focus (optics)Process (computing)Value (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In this exploratory study, we use a logistic multilevel model to examine the interplay between personality, emotions, and understanding. Methods: The impact of Conscientiousness, a Big Five Personality trait, on emotional responses during riddle-solving attempts was investigated in 101 participants, who each tackled 15 riddles remotely via Zoom. Video recordings were analyzed using iMotions with AFFDEX to identify the emotion type (positive, negative, and epistemic) experienced during the riddle-solving (understanding) process. Results: The study revealed significant effects of both positive and negative emotions on understanding scores. Upon examining cross-level interactions, the effect of trait Conscientiousness on the association between emotion type and understanding scores was not significant. Our random intercepts model appeared to provide the most satisfactory explanation for our exploratory findings. Further, the model demonstrated good discrimination ability, as evidenced by our area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. Discussion: Our results highlight the fundamental role of context, specifically the individual's perceived value of a learning activity and the nature of their understanding-emergent or established-in shaping the emotions evoked during the process of understanding. For future endeavors, we recommend a concentrated focus on the complex interplay between personality, emotions, and understanding, especially when understanding is in its emergent phase and the task employed for measurement provokes emotional investment.

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)0.001
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 score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessFrench-language works237,207