Comparing the lexical similarity of the triarchic model of psychopathy to contemporary models of psychopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The triarchic model of psychopathy (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009) posits that psychopathic personality comprises three domains: boldness, meanness, and disinhibition. The present study aimed to clarify conceptual overlap between contemporary definitions of psychopathy, with particular emphasis given to the relevance of boldness (i.e., social dominance, venturesomeness, emotional resiliency)-a topic of recent debate. METHOD: Undergraduate students (N = 439) compared the lexical similarity of triarchic domains with two contemporary models of psychopathy: the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP; Cooke, Hart, Logan, & Michie, 2012) and the Five-Factor Model of psychopathy (FFM; Widiger & Lynam, 1998). RESULTS: From a content validity perspective, meanness and disinhibition were lexically similar to both the CAPP and FFM psychopathy, whereas boldness was less strongly associated with these models. Meanness showed the strongest lexical similarity in comparison with past prototypicality ratings of the CAPP and FFM psychopathy. CONCLUSIONS: These findings bear implications for defining and comparing conceptualizations of psychopathy that underpin its assessment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".