MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139828448 · doi:10.1521/pedi.2012.26.5.676

Alexithymia as a Mediator Between Attachment and the Development of Borderline Personality Disorder in Adolescence

2012· article· en· W2139828448 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anne-Sophie Deborde, Raphaële Miljkovitch, Caroline Roy, Corinne Dugré-Le Bigre, Alexandra Pham‐Scottez, Mario Speranza, Maurice Corcos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Disorders · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyBorderline personality disorderMediationInsecure attachmentAttachment theoryToronto Alexithymia ScalePersonalityClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insecure attachment and the inability to identify emotions have both been put forward as possible explanations for dysfunction of the emotional system in borderline personality disorder (BPD). This study aimed to test a model according to which the influence of attachment on the development of BPD in adolescence is mediated by alexithymia. Borderline severity was assessed by means of the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders. Attachment and alexithymia were measured respectively with the Relationship Styles Questionnaire and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Mediation analyses conducted on 105 participants (54 with BPD and 51 matched controls) suggest that the role of security and negative model of self (i.e., preoccupied and fearful attachment styles) in the development of BPD symptoms are mediated by alexithymia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations48
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality DisordersSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207