Borderline personality features and presence of meaning in life: Mediating role of interpersonal problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with features of borderline personality disorder (BPD) may have difficulty sustaining a sense of meaning in life. Although problematic interpersonal behaviours may account for the link between BPD features and meaning, few studies have examined this possibility. The present study examined the mediating role of interpersonal problems in the association between borderline personality features and presence of meaning in life. A sample of Canadian community members completed the Borderline Symptom List, a brief version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, and the presence subscale of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire. Testing of indirect effects using bootstrap 95% confidence intervals found that interpersonal problems significantly mediated the relationship between borderline personality features and presence of meaning in life. This mediation effect remained significant after controlling for severity of general psychological distress. Thus, severity of interpersonal problems is a significant factor in explaining the link between BPD features and diminished meaning in life. The findings of this study suggest possibilities for further research regarding interpersonal dysfunction and meaning, and point to interpersonal problems as targets for helping to enhance meaning in life among individuals with features of BPD.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".