Mentalization and life stories among patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) and a control group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have shown that patients with BPD have mentalization difficulties (Fonagy et al., 2007) and less coherent autobiographical memories and life stories (Adler et al., 2012; Jørgensen et al., 2012). However, the relation between mentalization and coherence in life stories has not yet been examined in patients with BPD and this was the aim of our ongoing study. 30 patients with BPD and 30 controls will participate in the study. Mentalization is assessed using both self-report and performance measures (Empathic Quotient, Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 and Mayer, Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test). Life stories are assessed by having participants describe up to 10 chapters and rate causal coherence of these chapters. We expect that patients with BPD will show poorer mentalization and less causally coherent life stories compared to the control group. Furthermore, we expect that a lower ability to mentalize will be related to less coherent life stories.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".