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

Measuring Suicidality Using the Personality Assessment Inventory

2014· article· en· W2093484053 on OpenAlexaff
Marc W. Patry, Philip R. Magaletta

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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

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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessmentSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207