Implicit measures of association in psychopathology research.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies obtaining implicit measures of associations in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., Text Revision; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) Axis I psychopathology are organized into three categories: (a) studies comparing groups having a disorder with controls, (b) experimental validity studies, and (c) incremental and predictive validity studies. In the first category, implicit measures of disorder-relevant associations were consistent with explicit beliefs for some disorders (e.g., specific phobia), but for other disorders evidence was either mixed (e.g., panic disorder) or inconsistent with explicit beliefs (e.g., pain disorder). For substance use disorders and overeating, expected positive and unexpected negative associations with craved substances were found consistently. Contrary to expectation, implicit measures of self-esteem were consistently positive for patients with depressive disorder, social phobia, and body dysmorphic disorder. In the second category, short-term manipulations of disorder-relevant states generally affected implicit measures as expected. Therapeutic interventions affected implicit measures for one type of specific phobia, social phobia, and panic disorder, but not for alcohol use disorders or obesity. In the third category, implicit measures had predictive value for certain psychopathological behaviors, sometimes moderated by the availability of cognitive resources (e.g., for alcohol and food, only when cognitive resources were limited). The strengths of implicit measures include (a) converging evidence for dysfunctional beliefs regarding certain disorders and consistent new insights for other disorders and (b) prediction of some psychopathological behaviors that explicit measures cannot explain. Weaknesses include (a) that findings were inconsistent for some disorders, raising doubts about the validity of the measures, and (b) that understanding of the concept "implicit" is incomplete.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.009 |
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 it