If it is absurd, then why do you do it? The richer the obsessional experience, the more compelling the compulsion
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
Mounting evidence suggests that obsessive intrusions are often accompanied and amplified by perceptual experiences of different modalities (e.g., feeling dirt on one's skin while experiencing intrusive thoughts about contamination). Pilot studies conducted online with individuals endorsing mild obsessive-compulsive symptoms have linked the co-occurrence of perceptual experiences and obsessions to the severity of subsequent compulsive behaviour as well as low insight. However, it is presently unclear whether sensory experiences accompany all types of obsessional thoughts or are restricted to certain preoccupations (e.g., contamination and aggression). The present study examined a clinical inpatient and outpatient sample with a formally diagnosed obsessive-compulsive disorder (N = 34). Perceptual properties of intrusive thoughts were assessed with the Sensory Properties of Obsessions Questionnaire. The prevalence of perception-laden obsessive thoughts was comparable with prior studies (73.5%), but the intensity was significantly greater. No association was observed between perceptual experiences and expert-rated insight. However, the severity of perception-laden obsessions predicted the frequency of and impairment associated with compulsive behaviour. This was particularly strong for obsessions about contamination. The present study confirms the high prevalence and clinical relevance of perceptual experiences that accompany obsessions and further challenges the traditional trichotomy splitting mental phenomena into thoughts, intrusions, and hallucinations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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