MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965729915 · doi:10.1037/a0018838

Changes in defensive functioning in a case of avoidant personality disorder.

2010· article· en· W1965729915 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle D. Presniak, Trevor R. Olson, John H. Porcerelli, V. Barry Dauphin

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersAmerican Psychoanalytic Association
KeywordsPsychologyClinical psychologyPersonalityPsychoanalytic theoryPersonality disordersDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapistSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case study is based upon data from a male patient with Avoidant Personality Disorder who was in psychoanalytic treatment for 5 years. Defense mechanism use was assessed by 3 coders using the Defense Mechanisms Rating Scales. Session transcripts from intake, each year of therapy, and 1-year follow-up were used for the ratings. Over the course of psychoanalysis and follow-up, the patient's Overall Defensive Functioning and High-Adaptive defense level use increased and his use of the Disavowal defense level and Fantasy decreased. The pattern of change throughout treatment was also assessed. The patient's Overall Defensive Functioning decreased initially, followed by an increase through year 4. Overall Defensive Functioning decreased again prior to termination before increasing to its highest level at follow-up. The results demonstrated changes consistent with hypotheses and theory, including overall improvement in defensive functioning, an initial regression of defensive functioning, decline in functioning immediately prior to termination, and continued improvement posttermination. This pattern of defense change highlights the importance of assessing defenses in treatment research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.333
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychotherapySame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207