MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047697179 · doi:10.1080/0164212x.2010.518307

Exploring Social Participation of People with Cluster B Personality Disorders

2010· article· en· W2047697179 on OpenAlexafffund
Nadine Larivière, Johanne Desrosiers, Michel Tousignant, Richard Boyer

Bibliographic record

VenueOccupational Therapy in Mental Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsHôpital Louis-H LafontaineUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRéseau québécois de recherche sur le vieillissementCanadian Occupational Therapy FoundationPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyPersonalityQuality of life (healthcare)Interpersonal relationshipInterpersonal communicationPsychological interventionPersonality disordersRehabilitationActivities of daily livingCluster (spacecraft)Clinical psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to describe the impact of living with a cluster B personality disorder in an acute phase on social participation. A descriptive cross-sectional design was used. During their first week in a day hospital or inpatient admission, 31 participants completed the Assessment of Life Habits, examining the quality of social participation in 77 daily activities and social roles (life habits). The participants presented significantly more difficulties and dissatisfaction in realizing social roles than daily activities. Areas of life perceived to be the most problematic to accomplish were leisure, school, and work. Interpersonal relationships and fitness were the least satisfying. Personal care was the least disrupted and most satisfying life habit. Life habits that could be prioritized in psychiatric rehabilitation interventions with people with cluster B personality disorders included leisure activities, work and school, fitness, and interpersonal relationships.

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)0.001
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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOccupational Therapy in Mental HealthSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207