An exploration into the field of personality differences between drug-addicted offenders and non-addicted offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research project was designed to investigate the personality differences between incarcerated, drug-addicted offenders and non-addicted offenders. It was hypothesized: (1) that addicted and non-addicted offenders differed significantly on certain unspecified personality variables; (2) that 'Age', 'Education', 'Intelligence' and 'Type of Environment', influenced the endorsement of certain unspecified personality statements. To test the first hypothesis, addicted and non-addicted inmates of a Canadian Federal Penitentiary were matched individually, according to four variables: age, education, intelligence and type of environment. To test the second hypothesis, the two groups were further classified according to the relative position which each group member occupied on a high-low continuum for each matching variable (age, education, etc.). Thus a high and low value of each variable was obtained by taking the median of each distribution. The groups were classified according to the new intra-variable criteria, namely: high age versus low age, high intelligence versus low intelligence, high education versus low education, and a positive versus negative environment. Except for the environmental variable, all of these intra-variable groups consisted of equal numbers of cases. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (195>8) was administered to 70 matched pairs. The results indicated that except for the intelligence variable the two hypotheses were confirmed. The main study, concerned with the first hypothesis, established that on five of the fifteen personality variables, differences between addicted and non-addicted offenders were statistically significant at the one per cent level. These variables were, Succorance, Abasement, Endurance, Heterosexuality, and Aggression. The intra-group study, concerned with the second hypothesis, established that three of the four matching variables influenced the endorsement of personality statements on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. Intelligence did not prove to be a variable influencing the endorsement of a personality statement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".