Diary Records of Thought Suppression by Individuals with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impairment in mental control is a primary complaint of many sufferers of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Most OCD sufferers work very hard to rid themselves of their obsessions, to little avail. Although active resistance is a defining feature of obsessions, it is typically not assessed in measures of OCD severity and little is known about the frequency of attempts at thought control or its impact on functioning while control strategies are engaged. In the present study, 37 individuals diagnosed with OCD kept a diary of their suppression attempts over a 3-day period, recording the circumstances under which the attempt at suppression occurred, the suppression strategy used, its outcome, and its impact on concentration, mood, peace of mind, and ability to proceed with planned activities. Results indicated that individuals with OCD engage in frequent, strenuous, time-consuming and ultimately unsuccessful attempts to control thoughts. Suppression was used as a means of avoiding the hassles associated with experiencing an obsession and with performing a compulsive ritual. Consistent with other research, suppression was also used as a means of neutralizing harm potentiated by the obsession. These findings suggest that thought suppression efforts and their impact may contribute significantly to the severity of impairment associated with OCD, and that it might be useful for clinical and research purposes to evaluate suppression as a severity indicator.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".