MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319997766 · doi:10.5127/jep.045714

Working Memory in Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Effects of Verbal and Image-Based Worry and Relation to Cognitive and Emotional Processes

2016· article· en· W2319997766 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychopathology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorryPsychologyGeneralized anxiety disorderAnxietyCognitionAffect (linguistics)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) is characterized by excessive, uncontrollable worry and is associated with cognitive and emotional difficulties including threat interpretation bias (IB). Worry, especially in a verbal mode, has been shown to cause a temporary restriction in working memory (WM). This study examined the effects of verbal and image-based worry on WM, whether the effect of worry on WM accounts for IB in persons with GAD, and the degree to which WM correlates with cognitive and emotional processes associated with GAD. At baseline, participants (N = 32) with GAD completed questionnaires assessing worry, and related processes, and WM and IB tasks. Participants were then trained to worry in verbal or imagery form, per Leigh and Hirsch (2011), and completed WM and IB tasks a second time. At baseline, in the absence of induced worry, lower WM was related to greater emotion dysregulation, intolerance of uncertainty, negative problem orientation, and lower attentional control. Induced worry, regardless of the form, did not significantly affect WM or IB.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it