MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4252796223 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14655159

How Do We Target NSSI in BPD? Exploring The Relationship Between Emotion Dysregulation, Interpersonal Dysfunction, And Non-Suicidal Self-Injury

2021· preprint· en· W4252796223 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer W. Y. Ip

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmotional dysregulationPsychologyDialectical behavior therapyInterpersonal communicationBorderline personality disorderClinical psychologyInterpersonal relationshipSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current research investigated: 1) the trajectory of changes in emotion dysregulation, interpersonal dysfunction, and nonsuicidal self-injury (i.e., NSSI) over the course of DBT, and 2) whether changes in emotion dysregulation mediate the recovery of other features of BPD in treatment. Individuals with BPD (N = 120) enrolled in a multi-site study were assessed at five timepoints over 12 months of dialectical behaviour therapy (i.e., DBT). Results indicated that interpersonal dysfunction and NSSI decreased linearly over the course of DBT. Emotion dysregulation decreased in a quadratic manner; most of the gains in emotion dysregulation may occur in earlier phases of DBT. Results also revealed that although changes in emotion dysregulation was not a significant mediator of the relationship between changes in interpersonal dysfunction and in NSSI, changes in interpersonal dysfunction predicted changes in emotion dysregulation. Future research directions regarding NSSI, emotion dysregulation, and interpersonal dysfunction within DBT are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→