MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379598216

[Shame Proneness in Borderline Personality Disorder: Critical Reflection Based on Data from the Province of Quebec].

2022· article· en· W4379598216 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Théberge, Dominick Gamache, Sébastien Hétu, Julie Maheux, Claudia Savard

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShameFeelingContemptPsychologyBorderline personality disorderPersonalityClinical psychologyPopulationSocial psychologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Shame is a painful feeling that one feels when under the impression of having committed an offence or contravened to a personal or moral standard. Shame experiences are often intense and entail a global, negative self-evaluation; persons then feel like they are bad, weak, worthless, or deserving others' contempt. Some people are more prone to shame feelings. Although shame is not listed as a diagnostic criterion of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in the DSM-5, studies suggest that shame is an important feature in individuals with BPD. The aim of this study is to garner additional data to document shame proneness in individuals presenting with borderline symptomatology in the population from the Province of Quebec. Method Overall, 646 community adults from the Province of Quebec completed online the brief version of the Borderline Symptom List (BSL-23), measuring the severity of symptoms associated with BPD from a dimensional perspective, and to the Experience of Shame Scale (ESS), measuring shame proneness in various areas of a person's life. Participants were then compared on their shame scores after they were assigned to one of the four groups based on Kleindienst et al. (2020) classification of severity of borderline symptoms: (a) none or low symptoms (n = 173), (b) mild symptoms (n = 316), (c) moderate symptoms (n = 103), or (d) high, very high or extremely high symptoms (n = 54). Results Between-group differences were found with large effect sizes in all shame areas measured by the ESS, suggesting that shame feelings tend to be greater in persons presenting more borderline traits. Conclusion Results are discussed in a clinical perspective of BPD, emphasizing the importance of having shame as a clinical target in psychotherapy with these clients. Furthermore, our results raise conceptual questions regarding how to integrate shame in the assessment and treatment 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207