Commentary: Bringing together lived experience, clinical and research expertise – a commentary on the May 2022 debate (should CAMH professionals be diagnosing personality disorder in adolescence?)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that the Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD, or similar Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, EUPD) construct is harmful. We provide a commentary on the ideas expressed in the May Debate issue, highlighting both concerns and alternatives. Method: We bring together lived experience, clinical, and research expertise. This commentary was written collaboratively drawing on all these sources of evidence. Results: We outline evidence that the BPD construct is invalid, harmful, not necessary for effective treatment and a potential block to the development and evaluation of alternatives. Conclusions: We ask readers to consider these concerns, perspectives, and ideas.
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 | 0.036 | 0.207 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.070 | 0.074 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".