MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Empirical typology of adolescent personality organization

2018· article· en· W2800318722 on OpenAlexaff
Marko Biberdzic, Karin Ensink, Lina Normandin, John F. Clarkin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNeuroticismTypologyPersonalityPsychodynamicsClinical psychologyPersonality disordersBorderline personality disorderPersonality Assessment InventoryDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of personality organization (PO) is central to current psychodynamic understanding of normal personality development as well as the development of personality disorders (PDs). However, individual differences in PO have primarily been studied in adult populations, and it remains unclear whether the clinical indicators of normal, neurotic and borderline PO manifest differently during adolescence. This study aimed to address the gaps in current knowledge regarding the potentially different manifestation of pathological PO in adolescence. In addition, we wanted to further establish the validity of the adolescent version of the Inventory of Personality Organization, by identifying cut-off points for each of the main dimensions of Normal, Neurotic, and Borderline PO. Participants included 430 adolescents (M = 16 years old) from the community. Cluster analysis identified three levels of PO corresponding to Normal, Neurotic, and Borderline PO. Cut- off points between the different POs were successfully established using ROC curve analyses.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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