"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.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".