MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031836119 · doi:10.1002/jclp.20080

Understanding and treating incompleteness in obsessive‐compulsive disorder

2004· article· en· W2031836119 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 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionHabituationPsychotherapistExposure and response preventionPopulationCognitive therapyCognitive psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incompleteness-the troubling and irremediable sense that one's actions or experiences are not "just right"--appears to underlie many of the symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Because incompleteness may reflect basic sensory-affective dysfunction, it presents a challenge to clinicians wishing to apply cognitive-behavioral treatments. In this article, I review ways of adapting well-demonstrated treatment principles to this condition. A case is presented and then used to discuss challenges in conducting cognitive-behavioral therapy with this population. Behavioral methods aimed at habituation (e.g., exposure and ritual prevention [ERP]) are probably more applicable than conventional cognitive techniques. However, even these may result in modest long-term gains; relapse is a probability if they are not actively practiced after treatment cessation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.265 · 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