Identifying subtypes among offenders with antisocial personality disorder: A cluster-analytic study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of whether antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and psychopathy are largely similar or fundamentally different constructs remains unresolved. In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994), many of the personality features of psychopathy are cast as associated features of ASPD, although the DSM-IV offers no guidance as to how, or the extent to which, these features relate to ASPD. In a sample of 691 offenders who met DSM-IV criteria for ASPD, we used model-based clustering to identify subgroups of individuals with relatively homogeneous profiles on measures of associated features (psychopathic personality traits) and other constructs with potential etiological significance for subtypes of ASPD. Two emergent groups displayed profiles that conformed broadly to theoretical descriptions of primary psychopathy and Karpman's (1941) variant of secondary psychopathy. As expected, a third group (nonpsychopathic ASPD) lacked substantial associated features. A fourth group exhibited elevated psychopathic features as well as a highly fearful temperament, a profile not clearly predicted by extant models. Planned comparisons revealed theoretically informative differences between primary and secondary groups in multiple domains, including self-report measures, passive avoidance learning, clinical ratings, and official records. Our results inform ongoing debates about the overlap between psychopathy and ASPD and raise questions about the wisdom of placing most individuals who habitually violate social norms and laws into a single diagnostic category.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".