DIRT—danger ideation reduction therapy for obsessive–compulsive washers: a comprehensive guide to treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Danger ideation reduction therapy (DIRT) for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is a new intervention focusing on providing corrective information, and is the subject of a new comprehensive guide to treatment for compulsive washing. The components of DIRT are well presented in this manual‐based treatment and the documentation includes dialogues, filmed interviews with workers in dangerous occupations, and fact sheets to persuade the client to exchange beliefs about danger for beliefs about safety. The book is well organized and user friendly. Clinical trials have shown DIRT to be an effective treatment. Although DIRT as a stand alone therapy seems to offer some advantages over conventional CBT, it may function currently more as an adjunct to help cognitive restructuring. DIRT certainly encourages us to rethink some assumptions about the use of corrective information in treating OCD. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Message: • Danger ideation therapy is principally a cognitive approach. • Corrective information may help in the treatment of OCD for washing. • The application of DIRT in other types of OCD and symbolic contamination remains uncertain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.014 |
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".