MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993635578 · doi:10.1097/nmd.0b013e31824cb378

Defense Mechanisms in Congenital and Acquired Facial Disfigurement

2012· article· en· W1993635578 on OpenAlexaff
Marijke E.P. van den Elzen, Sarah L. Versnel, J. Christopher Perry, Irene M.J. Mathijssen, Hugo J. Duivenvoorden

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisfigurementStyle (visual arts)Significant differencePsychologyAssociation (psychology)Developmental psychologyMedicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is of clinical interest to investigate the degree to which patients with facial disfigurement use defense styles. Therefore, 59 adults born with rare facial clefts, 59 patients with facial deformities acquired at an adult age, and a reference group of 141 adults without facial disfigurements completed standardized questionnaires. There was a significant difference between the group with and the group without disfigurements on immature defense styles, with the disfigured group using the immature style more frequently. There was a trend for the nondisfigured group to use more mature defense styles. No difference between congenital and acquired groups was seen on individual types of defense style. Self-esteem had the strength to differentiate mature and immature defense styles within our disfigured groups. The association of low self-esteem and the utilization of immature defense styles suggests that professional help may tailor treatment on discussing immature defense style and problems triggering or maintaining this style.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207