Embrained drives to perform extraordinary roles predict schizotypal traits in the general population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Some personal drives correspond to extraordinary social roles. Given that behavioral strategies associated with such drives may conflict with those associated with ordinary roles, they could cause behavioral disorganization. To test whether they do so independent of the factors responsible for full-blown schizotypy and schizophrenia, these drives were assessed in the general population. Two hundred and nine healthy volunteers were individually presented with hundreds of names of social roles in experimental psychology conditions. The task of the participant was to decide whether or not (s)he would consider performing the role at any moment of his/her life. Schizotypal traits were measured with the schizotypal personality questionnaire (SPQ), and delusion-like ideations were assessed by the Peters et al. Delusion Inventory. Demographics and social desirability were controlled for. Participants accepting a greater percentage of extraordinary roles had higher SPQ scores. Among the three factors of the SPQ, disorganization was the one best predicted by those percentages. This correlation (r=0.40, P=7.2E−09) was significantly greater (Fisher Z-transform, P=0.003) than the correlation between the percentages of ordinary roles accepted and the SPQ scores (r=0.145, P=0.044). Reaction times revealed no suboptimal cognitive functioning in high accepters of extraordinary roles and further strengthened the drive hypothesis. Their acceptances of roles were done faster and their rejections took longer than those of low accepters (P=5E−12). Culturally embrained drives to do extraordinary roles could thus be an independent factor of the symptoms measured in the normality to schizophrenia continuum.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".