MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387673104 · doi:10.3917/bupsy.582.0279

L’auto-agressivité et l’émergence de traits de personnalité et de symptômes limites à l’adolescence

2023· article· fr· W4387673104 on OpenAlexaff
Eugénie Krakhmalnikova, Miguel M. Terradas, Olivier Didier

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin de psychologie · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le trouble de personnalité limite (TPL) est un trouble complexe au sein duquel l’autoagressivité physique et psychique occupent une place importante. L’autoagressivité peut se manifester chez les adolescents et, plus particulièrement, chez ceux qui sont susceptibles de développer un TPL. Vingt-six adolescents provenant d’une école secondaire ont complété des questionnaires autorapportés évaluant l’automutilation, la prise de risque, les traits de personnalité limite en émergence, les symptômes du TPL, l’impulsivité et l’estime de soi. Les résultats révèlent que lorsque l’on contrôle pour l’impulsivité, les liens entre l’automutilation et les traits de personnalité limite en émergence, l’automutilation et les symptômes associés au TPL, la prise de risque et les traits de personnalité limite en émergence ne perdurent pas. De plus, il n’y a pas de lien entre les symptômes du TPL et la prise de risque. Enfin, la sévérité des symptômes du TPL prédit de plus fortes manifestations d’autoagressivité psychique. Il n’y a pas de lien entre l’émergence de traits de personnalité limite et l’autoagressivité psychique. Les limites et forces de l’étude sont discutées.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.390
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin de psychologieSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207