Is suicidality an outcome or a cause of extreme relationship-seeking in borderline personality disorder?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous theory proposes that humans perceive ordinary objects and experiences as beautiful, which motivates the pursuit of life. This quality is crucial among organisms that are cognitively capable of understanding that they can end their own suffering through self-killing (i.e., suicide). This paper argues that borderline personality disorder (BPD) is characterized by an inability to find beauty in ordinary experiences, which results in increased susceptibility to suicide. Accordingly, individuals with BPD pursue meaningful relationships to supplement this deficiency. Thus, those with BPD are hypothesized to have increased emotional sensitivity to interpersonal contexts, but muted emotional responses to ordinary experiences that elicit awe or happiness in others (e.g., pictures of landscapes, poetry about nature, etc.). Suicidality in individuals with BPD is often precipitated by fear of separation or rejection. At first glance this may appear as a bargaining tactic, designed to rekindle a dying relationship. Alternatively, this paper suggests that a predisposition to suicide is causal of extreme relationship-seeking behaviour in BPD. Additionally, this theory suggests that those with BPD who do not meet the interpersonal criteria for the disorder may be at a heightened risk of suicidality, because they have fewer objects to derive beauty from.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".