"I'm sorry I did it...but he started it": A comparison of the official and self-reported homicide descriptions of psychopaths and non-psychopaths.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study concurrently examined the characteristics of violent actions (homicides) and the manner in which the violent acts are described by the perpetrators. N=50 offenders incarcerated for homicide were classified as psychopathic or non-psychopathic, according to the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991, 2003). The instrumentality/reactivity and major details of their violence were coded from the official files. Further, the offenders' own accounts were coded on the same variables by independent raters. Results indicated that whereas psychopaths were far more likely than their counterparts to have perpetrated primarily instrumental homicides, this difference disappeared when examining the self-report descriptions. Overall, although psychopaths and non-psychopaths both tended to exaggerate the reactivity of their homicides, psychopaths did so to a greater degree. Psychopaths also were more likely to omit major details of their offenses.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it