Schizotypal, Dissociative, and Imaginative Processes in a Clinical OCD Sample
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous research in a nonclinical sample has suggested that schizotypal, dissociative, and imaginative processes may play a role in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms (Aardema & Wu, ). The present study aims to extend these findings in a clinical sample. METHOD: N = 75 adults (mean age = 37.99; 61.3% female), meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, diagnostic criteria for OCD completed a battery of self-report questionnaires measuring schizotypal, dissociative, and imaginative processes. RESULTS: Hierarchical regression analyses revealed inferential confusion and dissociation to be the strongest predictors of OCD symptoms, replicating and extending the findings by Aardema and Wu (). CONCLUSION: Results support the notion that inferential confusion and dissociation are important variables to consider in understanding symptoms of OCD independently from obsessive beliefs and negative mood states.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it