The score distribution and factor structure of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences‐Positive Scale (CAPE‐P15) in a Canadian sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Psychotic-like experiences (PLEs) share several risk factors with psychotic disorders and confer greater risk of developing a psychotic disorder. Thus, individuals with PLEs not only comprise a valuable population in which to study the aetiology and premorbid changes associated with psychosis, but also represent a high-risk population that could benefit from clinical monitoring or early intervention efforts. METHOD: We examined the score distribution and factor structure of the current 15-item Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences-Positive Scale (CAPE-P15) in a Canadian sample. The CAPE-P15, which measures current PLEs in the general population, was completed by 1741 university students. RESULTS: The distribution of total scores was positively skewed, and confirmatory factor analysis indicated that a 3-factor structure produced the best fit. CONCLUSION: The CAPE-P15 has a similar score distribution and consistently measures three types of positive PLEs: persecutory ideation, bizarre experiences and perceptual abnormalities when administered in Canada vs Australia.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".