Childhood maltreatment, personality vulnerability profiles, and borderline personality disorder symptoms in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adverse childhood experiences are significant risk factors in the development of adolescent borderline personality disorder symptoms (BPDs). Theorists have posited that two personality vulnerabilities factors, self-criticism and dependency, may inform our understanding of this relationship. However, no research has examined the associations between early negative experiences, personality vulnerabilities, and adolescent BPDs. The current study aimed to identify profiles of dependency and self-criticism to examine the associations of these profiles with cumulative forms of childhood maltreatment (CM) and BPDs as well as to explore the mediating and moderating role of vulnerable personality profiles in the relationship between cumulative CM and BPDs. Two hundred and forty-one nonclinical and clinical adolescents participated in the study (Mage= 16.37,SD= 1.84). The findings indicated three different profiles: average dependent profile, dependent and self-critical profile, and self-critical profile. Individuals in the average dependent profile presented lower levels of CM and BPDs. Mediation analyses showed that relative to the average dependent profile, a higher cumulative CM history predicted a higher probability of belonging in the dependent and self-critical profile or the self-critical profile and, in turn, this was associated with higher levels of BPDs. No moderating effects of profiles of dependency and self-criticism were found.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".