Profiles of primary and secondary callous-unemotional features in youth: The role of emotion regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing evidence for multiple pathways in the development of callous-unemotional (CU) features, including primary and secondary profiles. Understanding affect regulation strategies among variants may provide further insight to the development and treatment of CU features. This study evaluated whether profiles of CU features could be identified within a clinical sample of youth using measures of affect dysregulation, affect suppression, anxiety, and maltreatment. We also examined whether these profiles were consistent across gender. Participants (N = 418; 56.7% female) ranged in age from 12 to 19 years (M = 15.04, SD = 1.85) and were drawn from a clinical sample. Latent profile analysis (LPA) was conducted using five indicators, including affect regulation, suppression, anxiety, CU features, and maltreatment. The best fitting model, a four-profile solution, included a low (low CU/dysregulation), anxious (low CU/high dysregulation), primary CU (high CU/low dysregulation), and secondary CU profile (high CU/dysregulation/maltreatment). LPAs found the same four-profile model when conducted separately for males and females. This is the first study to examine gender and include affect regulation strategies in the examination of primary and secondary profiles of CU.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".