Examining the utility of the PCL:SV as a screening measure using competing factor models of psychopathy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The correspondence between the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV; S. D. Hart, D. N. Cox, & R. D. Hare, 1995) and the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; R. D. Hare, 1991, 2003) was examined in forensic (N = 175) and correctional (N = 188) samples. Intermeasure correlations for Total scores (.95 forensic, .94 correctional) and the original 2-factor, D. J. Cooke and C. Michie's (2001) 3-factor, and R. D. Hare's (2003) 4-facet models (range = .87-.95) were high. Area under the curve values for the PCL:SV were .98 in both samples (cutoff = PCL-R Total score of 25). The PCL:SV performed well as a screen, maximizing false positive relative to false negative errors. Close correlations for prediction of violent recidivism in the correctional sample were obtained for the PCL-R (.42) and PCL:SV (.37). Results indicate the robust relation between the measures is maintained whether they are completed on the basis of file review only or file plus interview and whether the same or different raters score the measures.
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 | 0.070 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".