The development and validation of the Beliefs About Losing Control Inventory (BALCI)
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
Cognitive theory of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) proposes that maladaptive beliefs play a pivotal role in the development and maintenance of symptoms. Clinical reports as well as recent psychometric and experimental investigations suggest that control-related beliefs in OCD may benefit from expansion to include aspects of losing control. However, currently available measures either focus on other facets of control (e.g., sense of control) or do not put emphasis on beliefs about losing control (e.g., beliefs about control over thoughts). The current study aimed to develop and validate the Beliefs About Losing Control Inventory (BALCI), a self-report measure of negative beliefs about losing control, in a sample of undergraduate participants (N= 488). An exploratory factor analysis revealed that the BALCI’s 21 items capture negative beliefs about losing control over one’s thoughts, behaviour, and emotions (Factor 1), beliefs about the importance of staying in control (Factor 2), and beliefs about losing control over one’s body/bodily functions (Factor 3). The BALCI was also found to have good convergent and divergent validity and to be associated with elevated OCD symptoms above and beyond previously identified obsessive beliefs. Theoretical implications and recommendations for the field of cognitive-behaviour therapy are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it