MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414384784 · doi:10.22215/cujs.v5i2.5380

Perceiving Emotion Through the Lens of Psychopathy: A Comparison of Self-Report Measures

2025· article· en· W4414384784 on OpenAlexaff
Soleil Cazeau, John S. Logan

Bibliographic record

VenueCarleton undergraduate journal of science. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathyPerceptionEmotion perceptionInterpersonal communicationEmpathyDark triadBig Five personality traitsTask (project management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychopathy is characterized by interpersonal and affective deficits, particularly difficulties in accurately perceiving emotional cues. Although psychopathy has been extensively studied within forensic populations, there is limited research exploring psychopathy and emotion perception in non-forensic contexts, especially regarding the effectiveness of self-report measures. Addressing this gap, the present study investigated the relationship between self-reported psychopathic traits and accuracy in emotion perception. Undergraduate participants completed three self-report measures of psychopathy (SRP-SF, ICU, and EPA-SSF), followed by an emotion perception task using dynamic audio-video stimuli. Results indicated significant negative correlations between psychopathy scores and emotion perception accuracy, particularly for negative emotions such as sadness, fear, and disgust. Traits measured by the ICU consistently demonstrated the strongest predictive relationships. These findings reinforce the significance of affective dysfunction in psychopathy and support the validation of self-report measures, promoting broader and more accessible research on psychopathic traits across diverse contexts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarleton undergraduate journal of science.Same topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207