MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328354984 · doi:10.1097/nmd.0b013e3182083162

Object Relations and Emotional Processing Deficits Among Psychiatric Outpatients

2011· article· en· W2328354984 on OpenAlexaff
David Kealy, John S. Ogrodniczuk, Gail Howell-Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Mental Health & Substance Use Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyObject relations theoryAssociation (psychology)DistressObject (grammar)Emotional distressClinical psychologyPsychiatryOutpatient clinicMedicinePsychotherapistAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate the association between object relations and emotional processing deficits among a general sample of psychiatric outpatients. The sample consisted of 104 patients consecutively referred to 2 outpatient clinics. Participants completed measures of object relations, emotional processing deficits, and general psychiatric distress. After controlling for the effect of current symptom distress, we found that object relations impairment was significantly associated with emotional processing deficits relating to unregulated emotions, signs of unprocessed emotions, and emotion suppression. These findings support the notion that patients with impoverished mental structures possess maladaptive strategies for modulating intense affects.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.280
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207