MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942695063 · doi:10.1037/per0000335

Introducing a short self-report for the assessment of DSM–5 level of personality functioning for personality disorders: The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale.

2019· article· en· W2942695063 on OpenAlex
Dominick Gamache, Claudia Savard, Philippe Leclerc, Alexandre Côté

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality Disorders Theory Research and Treatment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPersonalityPersonality Assessment InventoryInterpersonal communicationPersonality disordersClinical psychologyScale (ratio)Developmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 106) were included in the validation sample. Overall, the SIFS showed sound psychometric properties. A second-order factor solution, which consisted of the four Level of Personality Functioning elements and an overarching personality pathology factor, showed the best fit indices. The four SIFS elements showed a well-differentiated and conceptually meaningful pattern of associations with related constructs. In light of these results, the SIFS should be considered as a promising, concise measure of Criterion A for clinical screening and research purposes. Its relative strengths and limitations in contrast with other existing self-report measures of Criterion A are discussed. (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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.412
Teacher spread0.316 · 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