MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4254306312 · doi:10.24124/2015/bpgub1054

Insensitivity to suffering: the relation of psychopathic traits to somatic processing, first-person and third-person pain.

2015· dissertation· en· W4254306312 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kimberley Kaseweter

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsPsychopathyEmpathyPsychologyPain perceptionPerceptionDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryPersonalityMedicineSocial psychologyNeurosciencePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite a growing body of evidence indicating that psychopathy entails profound deficits in emotional processing, the particular dysfunction in pain perception remains poorly understood. This study examined the influence of psychopathic traits on first-person and third-person pain perception. Undergraduate students (N = 110) completed measures of psychopathic traits and empathy. Participants then underwent a cold-pressor task during which they rated their pain experience and physiological activity was recorded. Next, participants watched a video of 60 clips of other people experiencing pain. Following each clip, participants rated the perceived level of pain. Higher levels of psychopathic traits were related to a lower pain tolerance, but not to differences in pain ratings or physiological activity. However, psychopathic traits were associated with a mismatch between individuals' subjective ratings and physiological activity. Lastly, psychopathic traits were associated with decreased sensitivity to others' pain. These findings provide novel insights into the emotional deficit characterizing psychopathy. --Leaf ii.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending→French-language works237,207→