Is temperament activity-specific? Validation of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire-Compact (STQ-77)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents benefits of activity-specific model of temperament, and a study of\nconcurrent and discriminant validity of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire-Compact\n(STQ-77). The 12 temperamental scales of STQ-77 include 3 emotionality scales and 9\nscales measuring dynamical aspects of activity analysed separately for physical, social and\nintellectual activities (activity-specific approach). The validity of STQ-77 was measured\nusing 220 Canadian participants with the I7 Impulsiveness questionnaire, Locus of Control\nscale, estimated school grades and time required to complete two tests. The results show\nhigh correlation between the three I7 scales and the three similar STQ-77 scales. There\nis also activity-specific correspondence between school grades estimates, time of testing\nand STQ-77 scores. The importance of separation of temperament characteristics in three\ntypes of activity is 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".