MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316925319 · doi:10.1037/per0000010

Response to commentaries: Modernity and narcissistic personality disorder.

2014· letter· en· W2316925319 on OpenAlexaff
Joel Paris

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality Disorders Theory Research and Treatment · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarcissismMillerWrightNarcissistic personality disorderModernityConstruct (python library)PsychologyPersonalityPsychoanalysisMeaning (existential)TraitSociologySocial psychologyEpistemologyPersonality disordersPhilosophyHistoryPsychotherapistArt historyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Replies to comments by Twenge, Miller, and Campbell (see record 2014-16207-001), Trull (see record 2014-16207-002), and Wright (see record 2014-16207-003) on the original article by Paris (see record 2012-18549-001) on the topic of narcissism and modernity. The current author would like to thank all three commentators for focusing on points in the original article that need clarification. Wright (2014) underlines the problem of precisely defining narcissism, arguing that research cannot progress until we agree on the meaning of the construct. Trull (2014) makes the useful point that cohort changes in narcissism do not translate into changes in the prevalence of NPD. Finally, Twenge, Miller, and Campbell (2014) are leaders in the empirical study of narcissism and NPD. The current author is pleased that they agree with some of his conclusions. However, they should not consider the case for dramatic increases in trait narcissism to be settled.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.297 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality Disorders Theory Research and TreatmentSame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207