Differentiating normal, abnormal, and disordered personality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in the interface between normality and psychopathology was renewed with the publication of DSM‐III more than 20 years ago. The use of a separate axis to classify disorders of personality brought increased attention to these conditions. At the same time, the definition of personality disorder as inflexible and maladaptive traits stimulated interest in the relationship between normal and disordered personality structure and functioning. The evidence suggests that the traits delineating personality disorder are continuous with normal variation and that the structural relationships among these traits resemble the structures described by normative trait theories. Recognition that personality disorder represents the extremes of trait dimensions emphasizes the importance of differentiating normal, abnormal, and disordered personality. It is argued that while abnormal personality may be considered extreme variation, personality disorder is more than statistical variation. A definition of personality disorder is suggested based on accounts of the adaptive functions of personality. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it