Personality Characteristics and Attachment in First Episode Psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has suggested those with chronic schizophrenia are impaired in social functioning, and that those early in the illness also exhibit these impairments. However, the factors underlying and contributing to social dysfunction have not yet been well delineated, particularly within a first episode sample. The current study sought to investigate the role of attachment style and personality characteristics in the social dysfunction of those diagnosed with a first episode of psychosis. Ninety-six participants experiencing a first episode of psychosis were compared with control participants from 2 different samples on attachment and personality variables. Results suggested that those with a first episode of psychosis may experience more problematic attachment in peer relationships compared with nonclinical controls, and that the type and amount of differences observed may vary by gender. In addition, those experiencing a first episode of psychosis report different levels of the "big five" personality traits when compared with nonclinical controls. Finally, within the first episode sample, both personality and attachment appear to contribute variance to 3 domains of social functioning: social and individual living skills, inappropriate community behavior, and quality of life. These findings have implications for the functional significance of these psychological constructs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".