Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Twenty-nine newly recovering alcoholic outpatients drawn from a Minnesota-Model type treatment program in the United Kingdom completed the NPI narcissism scale and the “Steps Questionnaire.” Results showed the narcissistic “authority” subscale showed a very strong inverse relationship to level of personal acceptance of Steps 2 and 3 (the so called “God” steps) of the 12-Step program embodied by Alcoholics Anonymous. Also, the narcissistic “superiority” subscale showed a significant inverse association with acceptance of Step 3. The present results suggest that, relative to their more humble counterparts, recovering alcoholics who score high on narcissism are particularly reluctant to accept the spiritual aspect of the program of addiction recovery advocated by AA. In particular, results suggest self-centered outpatients are reluctant to surrender their willfulness and thereby accept help from a transcendent yet immanent Divine Source of power. We tentatively conclude narcissism, or lack of humility, might serve as a psychological barrier that inhibits the tendency to seek assistance from or become fully engaged in faith-based community self-help groups that might facilitate sobriety. As a result of their reluctance to accept empowerment from spiritual resources, narcissist alcoholic clients might be vulnerable to dropout or minimal engagement in professional treatment based on AA principles, as well as relapse.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".