MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396234371 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2024-003

The Dilemma of People Experiencing Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) on Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) Teams—A Scoping Literature Review: Can ACT help people with BPD?

2024· article· en· W4396234371 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Josiah Osagie, Yvonne Bergmans, Michaela Beder, Madeleine Ritts, Juveria Zaheer, Kate Wren, Melissa L. Button, Nicole Kirwan, Matthew N. Levy, Samuel Law

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsGeorge Brown CollegeCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorderline personality disorderDilemmaAssertivenessAssertive community treatmentPsychologyPsychotherapistPsychiatryClinical psychologyMental healthMental illness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People with borderline personality disorder (BPD) are typically excluded from assertive community treatment (ACT) teams, the intensive model that typically serves people with serious psychotic and mood disorders. Nevertheless, many people with BPD are on ACT teams for clinical comorbidity or other reasons. Suitability and ability of ACT to provide their care is understudied. Our scoping literature review shows a limited body of research, with strong but mixed opinions on this dilemma, but notable incorporation of training and skills (e.g., dialectical behavioral therapy) into ACT may improve care for this population whose presence on ACT teams is a clinical reality.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.124
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.124
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207