Atypical Emotional Responses in Borderline Personality Disorder and Implications for Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is defined as a mood instability personality disorder. Generally, people with BPD develop suicidal, self-harming behaviors, and comorbid disorders, such as major depression disorder (MDD) and anxiety disorder. BPD is mainly caused by traumatic experiences and abuse in childhood. The symptom of BPD usually begins at adolescence. According to the previous research, BPD patients expressed more negative emotions comparing with typically developing group. Their reference activity (RA) and reflective function (RF) are both damaged. Besides that, BPD patients are also different from the norm in terms of self-consciousness at two aspects. Additionally, BPD patients may experience emotional dysregulation and loss of emotional goals. They have greater aggressive tendency rather than cooperation. Moreover, BPD groups were difficult to discern ambiguous facial emotions, and traumatic experiences can also influence the facial recognition barriers. Regarding interventions for BPD, BPD patients are taught to use the emotional labels to regulate emotions. After intervention, BPD groups improved their patience and adjusted their emotional difficulties. In the previous studies, the samples were relatively small, and no long-term observation were conducted. Future research should adopt longitudinal designs to enable deeper understanding of this area. This review can give some suggestions to intervention studies and practices for adolescents who are at risk 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".