MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3149353784 · doi:10.33137/jns.v2i1.34758

Emotional Responsiveness in Borderline Personality Disorder: A Review of Self-Report and Physiological Measures.

2021· review· en· W3149353784 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Suman Qaisar

Bibliographic record

VenueUTSC s Journal of Natural Sciences · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorderline personality disorderPsychologyImpulsivityEmotional dysregulationClinical psychologyReactivity (psychology)Interpersonal communicationPersonalityEmotional regulationDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a mental disorder characterized by emotional dysregulation, impulsivity, and interpersonal problems, has historically been conceptualized by generalized heightened intensity and reactivity. However, findings regarding emotional responsiveness in adults with BPD are mixed. The current review aimed to critically assess and compare self-report and physiological research of emotional responsiveness in adults with BPD by electronic searching of relevant databases, with 6 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Specifically, results from self-report and physiological measures are compared in an attempt to synthesize similarities and differences. The results suggest a negativity bias in BPD, indicating that BPD patients exhibit heightened negative emotional reactivity, particularly in response to BPD-specific emotional stimuli. Additionally, limitations of individual studies and of the current review are discussed, with potential directions for future research.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUTSC s Journal of Natural SciencesSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207