EPA-0614 – Development and initial structure analysis of a french version of the pathological narcissism inventory.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to develop a French version of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI ; Pincus et al., 2009) and to examine its internal structure. This French version was developed using a forward-backward procedure. Two two-person teams worked independently, one translating from English to French, the other translating back from French to English afterwards. Next, the two teams were assembled, and a new person joined them, and this committee developed the final French items on the basis of this work. The translated measure was then administrated to French speaking participants and the internal structure of this version was examined through a series of Factor Analyses. First, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) failed to reproduce the original one-level structure of the English version, as well as the two-level structure identified by Wright et al. (2012). Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was then performed to identify the internal structure of our data, which appears very similar to the English one and two-level structures. The sample was then randomly divided in two and the best fitting model was compared with PCA and CFA in the two subsamples. Finally, a multilevel model with fewer items best fits the data.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".