Changes in defensive functioning in a case of avoidant personality disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".