MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989653200 · doi:10.1002/jclp.20729

Imaginative, dissociative, and schizotypal processes in obsessive‐compulsive symptoms

2010· article· en· W1989653200 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPersonalityDissociativeSchizotypyHoarding (animal behavior)ConfusionAbsorption (acoustics)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates imaginative, dissociative, and schizotypal processes that are potentially relevant to obsessive-compulsive (OC) symptoms. Students (n = 377) completed questionnaires that assessed inferential confusion, absorption, schizotypal personality, and other domains. Hierarchical regression revealed that inferential confusion and absorption were the most consistent predictors of OC symptoms; other content predicted variance for specific OC symptoms. For example, schizotypal personality predicted checking and hoarding symptoms, but not cleanliness or ordering rituals. Immersive tendencies predicted cleanliness and hoarding but not checking or ordering rituals. Results are consistent with an inference-based model of OC, in which an overreliance on imagination during reasoning gives rise to experiences that are inconsistent with reality. This study suggests additional domains that may help explain why intrusive thoughts become obsessions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.419 · 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