MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073409910 · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa7701_06

Object Relations and Defense Mechanisms of a Psychopathic Serial Sexual Homicide Perpetrator: A TAT Analysis

2001· article· en· W2073409910 on OpenAlexfundno aff
John H. Porcerelli, Michael F. Abramsky, Stephen Hibbard, Ray Kamoo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsRorschach testPsychologyHomicideObject relations theoryPsychodynamicsDenialPsychopathyPersonality testThematic apperception testObject (grammar)Defence mechanismsProjective testPsychoanalytic theoryPersonalityPoison controlDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPsychoanalysisInjury preventionPsychometricsTest validityMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The case of a 24-year-old African American man who committed serial sexual homicide and who met criteria (Hare, 1991) for psychopathy is presented. His Thematic Apperception Test (Murray, 1943) responses were used to code key aspects of personality organization--object relations and defense mechanisms--via the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale (Westen, Lohr, Silk, & Kerber, 1989) and the Defense Mechanisms Manual (Cramer, 1991), respectively. Severe object relations pathology and a reliance on the defense mechanism of immature projection and immature denial are noted. Findings are relatively consistent with previous psychodynamic Rorschach studies of psychopathic sexual homicide perpetrators (Gacono, Meloy, & Bridges, 2000; Meloy, Gacono, & Kenney, 1994).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality AssessmentSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207