MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154220571 · doi:10.1521/pedi_2013_27_084

Narcissism and Relational Representations Among Psychiatric Outpatients

2013· article· en· W2154220571 on OpenAlexaff
David Kealy, John S. Ogrodniczuk, Anthony S. Joyce, Paul Ian Steinberg, William E. Piper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Disorders · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarcissismPsychologyObject relations theoryPathologicalDistressInterpersonal relationshipAttachment theoryClinical psychologyInterpersonal communicationDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPsychotherapistMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pathological narcissism is associated with maladaptive interpersonal behavior, although less is known regarding the internal relational representations of narcissistic patients. The authors examined the relationship between pathological narcissism and two constructs that reflect internal representations of relational patterns: quality of object relations and attachment style. Patients attending a psychiatric day treatment program (N = 218) completed measures of narcissism, general psychiatric distress, and attachment style in terms of attachment avoidance and anxiety. A semistructured interview was used to assess quality of object relations. Multiple regression analysis was conducted, controlling for general psychiatric distress. Pathological narcissism was associated with anxious attachment, but not with avoidant attachment. Narcissism was also associated with lower levels of quality of object relations. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of internal representations of self-other relations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality DisordersSame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207