MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971907010 · doi:10.1037/per0000356

Mentalization and criterion a of the alternative model for personality disorders: Results from a clinical and nonclinical sample.

2019· article· en· W2971907010 on OpenAlex
Max Zettl, Jana Volkert, Claus Vögele, Sabine C. Herpertz, Katharina M. Kubera, Svenja Taubner

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality Disorders Theory Research and Treatment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentalizationPsychologyPersonality disordersSample (material)PersonalityClinical psychologyPsychotherapistPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

; mentalizing was assessed with the Brief Reflective Functioning Interview and coded with the Reflective Functioning Scale. We used structural equation modeling to investigate the relationship between LPFS domains and mentalization. Correlation analysis was used to examine the agreement between interview-rated LPFS and self-report measures of personality dysfunction. All domains of the LPFS were significantly related to mentalizing. Interview-rated LPFS was significantly associated with self-reported personality dysfunction. The findings support the notion that the LPFS and mentalization share a strong conceptual and operational overlap by demonstrating that both constructs are empirically interrelated. The results yield further support for the validity of the LPFS as a dimensional model for the assessment of personality disorder severity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.305 · 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