A systematic literature review of the etiology of borderline personality disorder from an ecological systems PERSPECTIVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is one of the most common, complex, costly, and severely impairing personality disorders, affecting an estimated 2% to 9% of the general population and 40% to 44% of the inpatient psychiatric population. A review of the literature was conducted using a systematic methodology. By incorporating an ecological systems perspective, a holistic and comprehensive critique of the literature surrounding the etiology of BPD is presented. The findings reveal that the etiology of BPD is a complex integration of psychological, biological, and social factors. More specifically, however, this review found that: (1) the etiology of BPD is complex and has many factors, (2) the dominant discourse about the etiology of BPD is based primarily in the psychological and biological literature, and (3) the examination of BPD etiology has focused solely on the individual and microsystems levels, neglecting to consider systemic factors such as the impact of discriminatory health and mental healthcare practices. Findings and future directions are explored through the ecological systems theory lens.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".