MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115763871 · doi:10.1521/pedi.18.2.151.32776

Personality Characteristics of Partner Violent Men: A Q-Sort Approach

2004· article· en· W2115763871 on OpenAlexaff
John H. Porcerelli, Rosemary Cogan, Stephen Hibbard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Disorders · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPersonalityBorderline personality disorderClinical psychologyPersonality disordersPoison controlDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our objective was to develop a personality profile of men who are violent toward their partners. A total of 52 experienced clinicians described either a current male patient who was violent toward his partner (and only toward his partner) or who was maritally distressed but nonviolent using the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure-200 (SWAP-200), a Q-sort instrument designed to harness the judgments of clinicians. Partner-violent patients showed significantly higher scores on the SWAP-200 antisocial and borderline personality disorder scales. In contrast, patients who were maritally distressed evidenced higher scores on the SWAP-200 obsessive, avoidant, and high-functioning depressive scales. The men who were violent toward their partners were more antisocial and emotionally dysregulated, which is consistent with theory, and less obsessive, which has not been theoretically explored. The groups did not differ on theoretically important dimensions of personality including paranoid, dependent, and hostile features.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations46
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality DisordersSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207