The joint hierarchical structure of adolescent personality pathology: converging evidence from two approaches to measurement.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the joint hierarchical structure of two measures of adolescent personality pathology within a community sample of Canadian adolescents. METHOD: Self-reported data on demographic information and pathological personality traits were obtained from 144 youth (M age = 16.08 years, SD = 1.30). Personality pathology was measured using the youth-version of the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP-Y; Linde, Stringer, Simms, & Clark, in press) and the Dimensional Personality Symptom Item Pool (DIPSI; De Clercq, De Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, & Mervielde, 2006). Lower-order scales were subjected to structural hierarchical analyses. RESULTS: Scales from the two measures were complementary in defining higher-order traits. Traits at the 4-factor level of the hierarchy (Need for Approval, Disagreeableness, Detachment, and Compulsivity) showed similarities and differences with previous results in adults. CONCLUSIONS: The current investigation integrated top-down and bottom-up measures for a comprehensive account of the higher-order hierarchy of adolescent personality pathology. Results are discussed in the context of convergence across approaches and in comparison with previous findings in adult samples.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".