MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2643131175 · doi:10.1002/9781118890233.ch21

Symmetry, Ordering, and Arranging Symptoms in Adults

2017· other· en· W2643131175 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Taylor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopsychosocial modelPsychopathologyEtiologyPsychologyClinical psychologyCognitive behavioral therapyCognitionExposure and response preventionOrderlinessPsychotherapistPsychological interventionCognitive restructuringCognitive therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter focuses on symmetry, ordering, and arranging obsessions and compulsions (SOA) in adults diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). It reviews the descriptive psychopathology of SOA and the empirical literature on the treatment, discusses what is known about the biopsychosocial etiology, and describes cognitive-behavioral interventions. SOA involves obsessions and compulsions about symmetry, orderliness, and exactness. Behavioral-genetic studies show that SOA symptoms are caused by genetic and environmental factors specific to SOA, along with nonspecific genetic and environmental factors, which influence other OC symptoms and other forms of psychopathology. Evidence suggests that OCD has a complex biopsychosocial etiology. First-line treatments for OCD include exposure and response prevention (ERP), which is often combined with cognitive restructuring, to form cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT), and serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs). For patients who fail to benefit from either SRIs or ERP, a common strategy is to combine the two treatments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207