MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1954293794 · doi:10.1026/1616-3443/a000182

Das Vancouver Obsessional Compulsive Inventory–Revised (VOCI-R)

2013· article· de· W1954293794 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sascha Gönner, Johanna Schmid, Stefanie Gönner, Rainer Leonhart, Willi Ecker

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie · 2013
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theoretischer Hintergrund: Das VOCI-R ist ein Selbstbeurteilungsinstrument zur mehrdimensionalen Messung der Schwere von Zwangssymptomen. Es deckt die wichtigsten Symptomdimensionen der Zwangsstörung ab und besitzt sehr gute psychometrische Eigenschaften. Fragestellung: Die vorliegende Studie untersucht die Kriteriumsvalidität und die diagnostische Genauigkeit der Gesamtskala und der einzelnen Subskalen des VOCI-R. Methode: Es wurden 162 Zwangspatienten anhand ihrer Selbstratings auf der Y-BOCS Symptomcheckliste unterschiedlichen Hauptsymptombereichen zugewiesen und anhand der VOCI-R Werte sowohl untereinander als auch mit 302 klinischen und 320 gesunden Kontrollpersonen verglichen. Ergebnisse: Anhand der Gesamtskala und der einzelnen Subskalen können Zwangspatienten mit unterschiedlichen Hauptsymptomen sehr zuverlässig voneinander und von klinischen und nicht-klinischen Kontrollpersonen unterschieden werden. Schlussfolgerungen: Der Einsatz des VOCI-R kann im Rahmen von Diagnostik und subtypspezifischer Therapieplanung empfohlen werden, um Zwangspatienten zuverlässig zu identifizieren und ihre behandlungsrelevanten Hauptsymptombereiche festzustellen.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.369
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und PsychotherapieSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207