MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968863374 · doi:10.1016/s0924-9338(14)77997-0

EPA-0614 – Development and initial structure analysis of a french version of the pathological narcissism inventory.

2014· article· en· W1968863374 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Diguer, Valérie Turmel, Raquel Da Silva Luis, V. Mathieu, Louis-Alexandre Marcoux, Thomas Lapointe

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarcissismWrightPsychologyPrincipal component analysisConfirmatory factor analysisSample (material)Social psychologyStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychiatrySame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207