Response to commentaries: Modernity and narcissistic personality disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
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".