MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808067395 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01115

Measuring the Capacity to Love: Development of the CTL-Inventory

2018· article· en· W2808067395 on OpenAlexaff
Nestor D. Kapusta, Konrad S. Jankowski, Viktoria Wolf, Magalie Chéron-Le Guludec, Madlen Lopatka, Christopher Hammerer, Alina Schnieder, David Kealy, John S. Ogrodniczuk, Victor Blüml

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniwersytet WarszawskiMedizinische Universität WienUniversität Wien
KeywordsPsychologyCTL*Chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The individual capacity to love has been linked to various mental health parameters and is considered to be an important outcome parameter of psychotherapeutic treatment. However, empirical examinations of the concept have not been conducted up to now. The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reliable instrument for the assessment of capacity to love (Capacity to Love Inventory, CTL-I) as a trait of personality, which is shown to be related to clinically relevant symptoms and conditions. METHOD: Four independent healthy samples in Austria (n=547, n=174, n=85) and Poland (n=240) were assessed by a prototype of the CTL-I and its final shorter version in a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Internal consistency of the total questionnaire and each subscale was assessed by Cronbach alpha. External validity was measured against Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II-R), Quality of Relationship Inventory (QRI), Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R), Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI) and Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) according to the theoretical framework of the CTL concept. Further test-retest reliability was assessed. RESULTS: The CFA confirmed 41 items in six dimensions: Interest in the life project of the other, Basic trust, Humility and gratitude, Common ego ideal, Permanence of sexual passion, and Acceptance of loss/jealousy/mourning. The Cronbach alphas of the total CTL-I and its subscales ranged between .67 and .90 and in all samples, suggesting a valid construct. The CTL-I was moderately positively associated with quality of relationship (Support r=.63, Conflict r=-.66, Depth r=.66) and inversely associated with symptoms of depression (r=-.37), pathological narcissism (r=-.29) and promiscuity (r=-.42). The test-retest reliability of the total CTL-I was high with r=.81, suggesting the stability of answers over time. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed 41-item version of the CTL-I is a psychometrically sound and validated instrument measuring six dimensions of the concept of the capacity to love. The reported negative associations with clinically relevant parameters such as depression, pathological narcissism and promiscuity as well as associations with relationship qualities such as conflicts, support and depth warrant its future use in burdened populations including couples in clinical settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207