MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2265844399 · doi:10.1521/bumc.2015.79.4.335

The Computerized Implicit Representation Test: Construct and incremental validity

2015· article· en· W2265844399 on OpenAlexaff
Craig Piers, Ryan J. Piers, J. Christopher Fowler, J. Christopher Perry

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Menninger Clinic · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyIncremental validityUnivariatePersonalityConstruct (python library)Construct validitySimilarity (geometry)Multivariate statisticsTest (biology)DistressAnxietyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsSocial psychologyStatisticsArtificial intelligencePsychiatryComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discrepancies in mental representations between self-aspects and significant others are associated with depression, personality disorders, emotional reactivity, and interpersonal distress. The Computerized Implicit Representation Test (CIRT) is a novel measure developed to assess discrepancies in mental representations. Inpatient participants (N = 165) enrolled in a longitudinal study completed baseline CIRT ratings of similarity between self-aspects (actual-self, ideal-self, and ought-self) and between actual-self and significant others (mother, father, liked others, and disliked others). Based on the similarity ratings, multidimensional scaling was utilized to generate distances between key self- and other representations in three-dimensional space. Results of univariate linear regression analyses demonstrated that discrepancies (distances) between self-aspects, actual-self to others, and actual-self to mother were significantly associated with impulsive and self-destructive behaviors and/or lifetime anxiety disorders. Multivariate hierarchical linear regression models further indicated that three CIRT variables provided incremental validity above and beyond age, gender, and/or borderline personality disorder.

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)0.001
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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Menninger ClinicSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207