I do think that the definitions you provide are what are considered the ideal, what the words are supposed to mean.  The biggest problem I have, however, is that a good many of the very same people who claim to be open-minded are the ones who will quickly say, “Your opinion/belief/value-system is just as valid as mine, so I cannot tell you that you are wrong and I am right, because truth is relative.” This is a philosophical and ideological stance that 1) I cannot abide and 2) simply does not make sense, even within itself.  These sort of open-minded people claim to evaluate and assess in search of truth when in reality they are simply attempting to keep from rocking the boat, unaware all the while that the boat has a leak and is slowly sinking into the depths.  I’ve never understood how anyone who truly claims to be an evaluator of what is true and what is not can come to the conclusion that everyone’s beliefs and views are equally valid as the next, particularly when there are clear cases of truth and untruth, thesis and antithesis, held in juxtaposition to one another.  Hence my rant against this supposed ideal of being open-minded.  Perhaps what is needed is clearer definitions and more precise terms for these various approaches to the understanding of truth.

Close-mindedness, on the other hand is about rejecting a viewpoint without going through any work of evaluation.  There is not attempt to use any tools of assessment.  It is rejected out of hand simply for being alien to the mind encountering it.