MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028962026 · doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00145

Commentary on Reconceptualizing Personality Disorder Categories Using Trait Dimensions

2001· article· en· W2028962026 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacet (psychology)TraitPsychologyPersonalityTrait theoryBig Five personality traits and cultureBig Five personality traitsPersonality disordersPersonality developmentAlternative five model of personalitySelf-transcendenceClinical psychologyCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability of trait models of personality to account for categories of personality disorder is examined with particular reference to the five-factor approach. Although dimensional models are consistent with the evidence, and trait models can accommodate personality disorder categories, it is not clear that such models are directly applicable to clinical use. The lower-order or facet structure, in particular, needs further development to capture clinical concepts. It is also suggested that trait models do not account for all aspects of personality disorder-attention also needs to be paid to the organizing and integrative functions of personality.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.290 · 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