MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157574484 · doi:10.1002/bsl.561

The validity of the Antisocial Process Screening Device as a self‐report measure of psychopathy in adolescent offenders

2003· article· en· W2157574484 on OpenAlexaff
Zina Lee, Gina M. Vincent, Stephen D. Hart, Raymond R. Corrado

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences & the Law · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathyPsychopathy ChecklistPsychologyClinical psychologyConcurrent validityAntisocial personality disorderChecklistPoison controlPsychometricsInjury preventionMedicineMedical emergencySocial psychologyPersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a growing interest in the assessment of adolescent psychopathy to enable early treatment and intervention. Recently, a self-report measure has been developed to assess psychopathic traits in adolescents. The Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD), a self-report measure of psychopathic traits, and the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV), a clinical rating scale, were administered to a sample of 100 incarcerated male adolescent offenders to assess the concurrent validity of the APSD. Results indicated that the APSD had limited concurrent validity with respect to the PCL:YV and that there appears to be a method effect in the measurement of psychopathy. Thus, it appears the APSD did not assess psychopathy in a manner parallel to that of the PCL:YV.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations89
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral Sciences & the LawSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207