Cognitive Reactivity in Obsessional Rumination: A Naturalistic and Longitudinal Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, evidence for cognitive reactivity in OCD has been provided through laboratory-based investigations assessing the impact of mood-states on obsessional appraisals and behaviours in experimenter controlled scenarios. In order to better grasp the dynamics of cognitive reactivity in OCD, the current study provides an extensive and intensive analysis of the longitudinal and naturalistic covariation between transient mood-states and appraisals across 8 individuals with obsessional rumination. Drawing on current models of cognitive reactivity, the use of different processing styles was hypothesised to differentially affect cognitive reactivity. Participants completed diaries recording mood-states and appraisals over the course of a cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for OCD. Based on the sequential analysis of conditional probability, contingency magnitude estimations of covariations revealed the presence of cognitive reactivity in 7 out of 8 participants. Further, covariation between mood and cognition showed close relationships to the participants' neutralization profiles associated with the Systematic, Superficial and Altered processing styles.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".