MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037184691 · doi:10.1080/01926187.2012.688006

Couples’ Negative Interaction Behaviors and Borderline Personality Disorder

2013· article· en· W2037184691 on OpenAlexaff
Béatrice de Montigny-Malenfant, Marie-Ève Santerre, Sébastien Bouchard, Stéphane Sabourin, Ariane Lazaridès, Claude Bélanger

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Family Therapy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteUniversité du Québec à MontréalCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorderline personality disorderDysfunctional familyPsychologyDominance (genetics)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe mental health problem predisposing to dysfunctional interaction behaviors and negative couple outcomes. This study aimed to assess, through direct observation, the quality of relationships of couples in which women were diagnosed with BPD. The sample consisted of 28 couples in which the woman had BPD, and 82 community couples. Couples’ interactions were coded using three scales—withdrawal/ avoidance, dominance, and criticism/attack/conflict—from the Global Couple Interaction Coding System. Couples in which the women had BPD evidenced significantly more negative behaviors, particularly dominance behaviors, than community couples. Moreover, in BPD couples, women adopted Criticism/Attack/Conflict behaviors more frequently than men.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Family TherapySame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207