MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W95493266 · doi:10.1177/070674370905401201

Recent Advances in Psychopathy Research

2009· editorial· en· W95493266 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David S. Kosson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2009
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathyAntisocial personality disorderPsychologyPsychopathy ChecklistPersonalityClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPoison controlInjury preventionSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(12):787-790. The study of psychopathy is a rapidly growing area of psychiatry and psychology. The articles in this In Reviewprovide insight into 3 critical domains of psychopathy research. Taken together, they illustrate the substantial progress made in understanding psychopathy and the mechanisms that underlie it. In addition, each identifies limitations of current knowledge and suggests important directions for fixture studies. Dr Robert D Hare and Dr Craig S Neumann1 provide a good introduction to the syndrome and summarize various issues related to using the expert-rater Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) measures to assess psychopathy, and address relations between psychopathy, antisocial behaviour, and violence. In reviewing similarities and differences between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), they argue persuasively that psychopathy merits a greater role in diagnostic taxonomies. Their reviews of the application of multivariate statistical methods and intervention studies are especially informative. Regarding intervention, they make the provocative argument that treatment need not alter the personality of psychopathic offenders to reduce antisocial behaviour. They also review recent findings suggesting somewhat effective treatment both of adults and of youth with psychopathic features. I comment here on only a few of these issues. First, Dr Hare and Dr Neumann' address the trend toward studying the dimensions underlying psychopathy rather than psychopathy itself. These studies raise questions about when the full psychopathy syndrome, compared with one of its components, is most useful in predicting outcomes of interest. Although they illustrate this issue within the domain of antisocial behaviour, the same issue applies to the affective, cognitive, and physiological anomalies associated with psychopathy. A related issue is that regression and structural equation modelling studies commonly report unique relations of factor scores to scores on criterion variables. However, because intercorrelations between psychopathy factor scores often account for one-half or more of the variance in a factor score, it is difficult to interpret the meaning of relations that are evident only after controlling for the influence of other factor scores.2 Substantial additional research on this issue is needed. Second, they review recent research suggesting the possibility of rater bias in assessments completed by clinicians in adversarial contexts. Given the increasing use of psychopathy in courtrooms, it is striking that so much of what we know about the disorder is based on research in which psychopathy is assessed confidentially. Evidence on the impact of biased self-presentation3 and on rater bias in adversarial contexts suggests that PCL ratings may be less reliable in forensic than in laboratory settings,4'5 another critical direction for fixture research. As Dr Hare and Dr Neumann note,1 PCL assessments that are completed based solely on file material provide a method that circumvents the need to interview defendants. However, such assessments may provide less information at higher levels of psychopathy and less adequate assessments of interpersonal-affective aspects of psychopathy.6 Whereas Dr Hare and Dr Neumann note that PCL: Youth Version (YV) scores have many of the same correlates as PCL - Revised scores, their chief focus is on psychopathy in adults. In contrast, Dr Paul J Frick7 reviews the burgeoning literature on youth with psychopathic traits. Given the probability that understanding the development of psychopathy will aid in preventing it, the past decade has seen a dramatic increase in studies of youth with psychopathic traits. Dr Frick's work occupies a pivotal place in this growing empirical literature. Instead of using expert-rater measures, Dr Frick7 focuses on studies employing parent, teacher, or self-ratings of psychopathic traits. …

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending→French-language works237,207→