Destigmatizing Borderline Personality Disorder: A Call to Action for Psychological Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite recognition that borderline personality disorder (BPD) is one of the most stigmatized psychological disorders, destigmatization efforts have thus far focused on the views and actions of clinicians and the general public, neglecting the critical role that psychological science plays in perpetuating or mitigating stigma. This article was catalyzed by recent concerns about how research and editorial processes propagate stigma and thereby fail people with BPD and the scientists who study BPD. We provide a brief overview of the BPD diagnosis and its history. We then review how BPD has been stigmatized in psychological science, the gendered nature of BPD stigma, and the consequences of this stigmatization. Finally, we offer specific recommendations for researchers, reviewers, and editors who wish to use science to advance our understanding of BPD without perpetuating pejorative views of the disorder. These recommendations constitute a call to action to use psychological science in the service of the public good.
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 | 0.020 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".