Where is multidimensional perfectionism in DSM-5? A question posed to the DSM-5 personality and personality disorders work group.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A radical reworking of Axis II has been proposed for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders whereby personality disorder categories will be replaced by a trait dimensional model of personality pathology. Perfectionism is specified as a lower order facet of Compulsivity within this proposed model. This marginalization of the perfectionism construct is inconsistent with the empirical literature that suggests that perfectionism is an important dimension of maladaptive personality in its own right, complete with its own set of more specific lower order facets. Further, perfectionism in the current proposed system is relevant only to the characterization of the obsessive-compulsive personality disorder type, despite compelling empirical research that demonstrates that various dimensions of perfectionism are differentially associated with personality pathology of all kinds. The present article reviews existing research on the role of various dimensions of perfectionism in personality disorder, highlights these seemingly ignored areas of the perfectionism literature, and discusses the problems and consequences that will arise if perfectionism continues to be defined narrowly and is largely excluded from dimensional models of personality pathology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it