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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Sadism, defined by the infliction of pain and suffering on others for pleasure or subjugation, has recently garnered substantial attention in the psychological research literature. The Assessment of Sadistic Personality (ASP) was developed to measure levels of everyday sadism and has been shown to possess excellent reliability and validity using classical test theory methods. However, it is not known how well ASP items discriminate between respondents of different trait levels, or which Likert categories are endorsed by persons of various trait levels. Additionally, individual items should be evaluated to ensure that men and women of similar levels of sadism have an equal probability of response endorsement. The purpose of this research was to apply item response theory (IRT) and differential item functioning (DIF) to investigate item properties of the ASP across its three translations: English, Polish, and Italian. Overall, the results of the IRT analysis showed that with the exception of Item 9, the ASP demonstrated sound item properties. The DIF rate analyses identified two items from each questionnaire that were of practical significance across gender. Implications of these results are discussed.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 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 it