MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4315881040 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/2eyxf

Validating Instruments to Screen for Psychopathy in a Non-Institutionalized Population

2023· preprint· en· W4315881040 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Theadora Bulajic, Nkiruka Olivia Marie Amu, Jinge Ren, Claire Elise Berner, Daria Fomina, Sagar Shah, John Yaurimo, Morolayo Ayodele, Jonah Zinn, Sam A. Golden, Shelby C. McClelland, Jennifer Marina Perez, Pranav Lowe, Amy Goltermann, Sahar Hafezi, Alexis Egazarian, Huidi Yang, Victoria Tong, Dylan Tossavainen, Lucy Cranmer, Alon Florentin, Naud Jacob Zwier Veldhoen, Jennifer Freda, Stephanie Devli, Amelia Karim, Barbara Angie Clergé Boirond, Helena Julia Torres-Siclait, Garrett Ienner, Andrea Poinçot-Leopardi, Stephen Spivack, Pascal Wallisch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsGenerosityPsychopathyPsychologyDark triadSample (material)PopulationDiscountingDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPersonalityPolitical scienceDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We wanted to validate commonly used instruments to measure psychopathic tendencies in a college student population. To do so, we administered both the “Dark Triad Dirty Dozen” and the "Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale" to a high-powered sample of college students. Participants also performed a social discounting task to measure generosity. We correlated all of these measures and found that both instruments correlate well and negatively with generosity. We take these findings to indicate that both instruments are valid measures of psychopathic tendencies in non-institutionalized populations.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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