MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Marginalization of Borderline Personality Disorder

2010· review· en· W2043165032 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 Psychiatric Practice · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorderline personality disorderMental healthPsychologyConstruct (python library)Health careMental health carePersonalityPopulationPsychiatryClinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) face considerable difficulties, both in terms of their symptom and functional status, as well as in attempting to obtain professional help. Their exclusion from appropriate mental health care and opportunities for recovery can be examined using the social construct of marginalization. Pervasive attitudes among clinicians, health care administrators, and policy-makers perpetuate the marginalization of BPD within systems of mental health care. Patients with BPD may be regarded as not suffering from a legitimate disorder, comprising a minority of the clinical population, and/or being a chronic drain on health care resources. Lack of suitable mental health services may be rationalized based on these attitudes. Considerable development in the empirical understanding of BPD challenges these stigmatizing attitudes and calls for critical questioning of the marginalized status of patients with BPD.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.377 · 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