The Effect of Attending Good Psychiatric Management (GPM) Workshops on Attitudes Toward Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect that attending a 1-day workshop on Good Psychiatric Management (GPM) had on attitudes about borderline personality disorder (BPD) was assessed among 297 clinicians. Change was recorded by comparing before and after scores on a 9-item survey previously developed to assess the effects of workshops on Systems Training for Emotional Predictability and Problem Solving (STEPPS). Participants reported decreased inclination to avoid borderline patients, dislike of borderline patients, and belief that BPD's prognosis is hopeless, as well as increased feeling of competence, belief that borderline patients have low self-esteem, feeling of being able to make a positive difference, and belief that effective psychotherapies exist. Less clinical experience was related to an increased feeling of competence and belief that borderline patients have low self-esteem. These findings were compared to those from the STEPPS workshop. This assessment demonstrates GPM's potential for training clinicians to meet population-wide needs related to borderline personality disorder.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".