MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093484053 · doi:10.1177/1073191114539381

Measuring Suicidality Using the Personality Assessment Inventory

2014· article· en· W2093484053 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySuicidal ideationClinical psychologyPersonality Assessment InventoryConvergent validityPersonalityTest validityScale (ratio)IdeationPsychometricsIncremental validityPersonality disordersConstruct validitySuicide ideationCalifornia Psychological InventoryPoison controlSuicide preventionSocial psychologyMedicineMedical emergencyInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although numerous studies have examined the psychometric properties and clinical utility of the Personality Assessment Inventory in correctional contexts, only two studies to date have specifically focused on suicide ideation. This article examines the convergent validity of the Suicide Ideation Scale and the Suicide Potential Index on the Personality Assessment Inventory in a large, nontreatment sample of male and female federal inmates (N = 1,120). The data indicated robust validity support for both the Suicide Ideation Scale and Suicide Potential Index, which were each correlated with a broad group of validity indices representing multiple assessment modalities. Recommendations for future research to build upon these findings through replication and extension are made.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.247 · 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