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 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".