Dataset and analysis script for the manuscript "Status, rivalry and admiration-seeking in narcissism and depression: a behavioral study"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Datasets and analysis script for the manuscript "Status, rivalry and admiration-seeking in narcissism and depression: a behavioral study". The attached R script begins with a read-me section with a short explanation of all variables present in the datasets. This information is also uploaded as a separate readMe in .txt format. Analyses are organized with respect to their order of appearance in the preprint (https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mxve9). The data is uploaded in two datasets: a long-format one (ds_pooled.csv) employed in the trial-by-trial regression models and a wide-format one for supplemental subject-level analyses (ds_pooled_wide.csv). The script contains code to further generate separate datasets for Samples 1 and 2 in both the long- and the wide-format. Please, refer to the manuscript for detailed information about how the data has been collected and analyzed. Note: The ds_items.zip file contains datasets with item scores of the included psychometric scales (trait-dominance, narcissism scales and depression scales). These files are only used in a short section of the script to compute reliability coefficients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.350 | 0.121 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".