MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Psychopathy and Memory for Violence

2007· article· en· W2081509303 on OpenAlexaffabout
Barry S. Cooper, Hugues Hervé, Alan Yuille

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental Health · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathyPsychologyBiopsychosocial modelExtant taxonCriminal justiceCriminologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPersonalityPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite theoretical speculation suggesting psychopaths have superior memory for their autobiographical experiences in comparison to nonpsychopaths, little published research has directly assessed this issue. This lack of research formed the impetus for the present investigation. As part of a larger study investigating variables associated with episodic memory in adult male offenders, 150 violent crime perpetrators were interviewed at two federal penitentiaries in British Columbia, Canada. The participants' memories for three different acts of perpetrated violence were elicited (i.e., acts of instrumental and reactive violence and a poorly remembered act of violence) and exhausted for detail. The sample was dichotomized by psychopathy status via the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003). Consistent with certain assumptions of Hervé, Cooper, and Yuille's (2007) biopsychosocial model of eyewitness memory, the pattern which emerged indicated that psychopathic participants reportedly had better memory for their acts of violence in comparison to nonpsychopathic participants. The results are discussed in terms of how the present research supports the extant research and theories. Future directions for empirical investigations and implications for the criminal justice system are offered.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental HealthSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207