MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The measurement of reflective function in adolescents with and without borderline traits

2013· article· en· W2071841025 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 Adolescence · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMenninger Clinic
KeywordsMentalizationBorderline personality disorderPsychologyContext (archaeology)Internal consistencyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reflective function refers to the capacity to reflect on the mind of self and others in the context of the attachment relationship. Reflective function (and its conceptual neighbor, mentalizing) has been shown to be an important correlate of a variety of disorders, including borderline personality disorder (BPD). The current study examined the construct validity of the Reflective Function Questionnaire for Youths (RFQY) in an inpatient sample of adolescents. Adequate internal consistency was established for the RFQY. Significant positive associations with an interview-based measure of reflective function and an experimental-based assessment of mentalization were found for the RFQY. Strong negative relations with BPD features were found and adolescent patients who scored above clinical cut-off for BPD symptoms demonstrated significantly poorer reflective function compared to patients without the disorder. These findings provide preliminary support for the notion that reflective function can be validly and reliably assessed in adolescent populations.

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)0.001
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.276 · 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