Moving the field forward: Commentary for the special series “Narcissistic personality disorder—New perspectives on diagnosis and treatment”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comments on the articles by A. E. Skodol et al. (see record 2013-24395-001), E. Ronningstam (see record 2014-42878-005), D. Diamond et al. (see record 2014-42878-004), and A. L. Pincus et al. (see record 2014-01439-001). These articles in this special issue, "Narcissistic personality disorder--new perspectives on diagnosis and treatment", provide useful guidance for all clinicians working with patients with narcissistic pathology, particularly those who may not have considered narcissism as an underlying cause of a patient's presenting difficulties or as a contributor to therapeutic impasse. Taken together, they offer a more conceptually sophisticated approach to NPD than the constraining criteria of the DSM, and make a compelling case that it is time for NPD and pathological narcissism to receive greater clinical and research attention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.059 | 0.053 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".