Clarifying the interstitial nature of facets from the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 using the five factor model of personality.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 388). Our findings revealed an optimal five-factor structure in the undergraduate sample (in which Openness facets did not load on any factor) and a six-factor structure in the clinical sample (in which Openness formed its own factor). Domains displayed good convergent validity with the domains of the personality psychopathology five model, except for Disinhibition/Conscientiousness, in which the lack of convergence was explained by Conscientiousness. Furthermore, we evaluated six specific PID-5 facets with respect to interstitiality and optimal PID-5 domain placement, where results supported several recommendations for model modification of the PID-5 structure. These include moving Restricted Affectivity to Detachment from Negative Affectivity, moving Hostility to Antagonism from Negative Affectivity, moving Suspiciousness to Negative Affectivity from Detachment, and removing Submissiveness from the PID-5 measure and the alternative model of personality disorders. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".