Compras compulsivas: uma revisão e um relato de caso
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
OBJECTIVE: Compulsive buying disorder was first described as a psychiatric syndrome in the early twentieth century. Its classification remains elusive, and investigators have debated its potential relationship to mood, substance use, obsessive-compulsive, and impulse control disorders. The objective of this study is to present a review of compulsive buying disorder and present a case vignette. METHOD: Two databases were reviewed (Medline and PsycINFO) in search for articles published in the last 40 years. Selected terms included oniomania, compulsive buying, and compulsive shopping. Other relevant articles were also identified through reference lists. RESULTS: Compulsive buying disorder is a prevalent and chronic condition that is found worldwide, sharing commonalities with impulse control disorders. In clinical samples, women make up more than 80% of subjects. Its etiology is unknown, but neurobiologic and genetic mechanisms have been proposed. The disorder is highly comorbid with mood, substance use, eating and impulse control disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment recommendations derived from the literature and clinical experience suggest that problem shoppers can benefit from psychosocial interventions. Cognitive-behavioral group models appear promising. Medication trials have reported mixed results. The identification and treatment of psychiatric comorbidity is also a key aspect of treatment. In order to determine the validity of compulsive buying disorder, future work should focus on psychopathology and neurobiological findings unique to the syndrome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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