MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386583606 · doi:10.51668/bp.8323208n

Cognitive insight and schizotypy in non-clinical adolescents

2023· article· en· W4386583606 on OpenAlexaff
Inmaculada Alonso Mateo, Elena Felipe Castaño, Miguel Simón Expósito

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Psychology/Psicología Conductual · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsIntertek (Canada)
FundersJunta de Extremadura
KeywordsSchizotypyPsychologyCognitionDevelopmental psychologyMetacognitionClinical psychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive insight is a metacognitive construct that has been shown to be useful in detecting vulnerability to schizophrenia spectrum disorders and, in particular to schizotypy. The main purpose of the study was to analyze the relationship between the cognitive insight and schizotypy in a sample of non-clinical adolescents, and to analyze the sensitivity and specificity of the cognitive insight in differentiating vulnerability to schizotypy. Participants were non-clinical adolescents selected by cluster sampling (school), with random group-class selection. The Cognitive Insight Scale and the Esquizo-Q-A were used. Results: We found a different cognitive insight profile from that found in previous studies, with a lower score in self-reflection and a higher score in self-certainty. Self-reflection and the composite index would allow us to classify participants with risk scores in distortion of reality and interpersonal disorganization. The cognitive insight would be a useful construct for detecting vulnerability to schizotypy in non-clinical adolescents and would allow the design of effective interventions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 venueBehavioral Psychology/Psicología Conductual→Same topicSchizophrenia research and treatment→French-language works237,207→