MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990321296 · doi:10.1115/detc2019-98277

Informing Design Defixation Using Interventions for Psychiatric Disorders

2019· article· en· W2990321296 on OpenAlexaff
Kayla Pedret, L. H. Shu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionDistractionRuminationPsychologyContext (archaeology)CognitionPsychotherapistCognitive psychologyCognitive restructuringFixation (population genetics)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Design fixation has been extensively studied in the context of engineering design, leading to several interventions to reduce its negative effects. The concept of mental fixation has roots in diverse psychological contexts from Freudian psychoanalysis to Gestaltism and eating disorders. Although the underlying concepts are similar, the phenomenon has different names, including mental set, rumination, functional fixedness, obsession, etc. Mental fixation in its various forms is always a barrier to problem solving, whether the problem is a psychological disorder or an engineering-design task. The present paper explores the applicability to design fixation of cognitive therapy, a form of psychotherapy that relies on questioning to identify and modify inaccurate perceptions. Originally developed to treat depression, it is now used to treat a variety of psychiatric disorders. Specific interventions used in cognitive therapy are described in detail towards developing new means of overcoming design fixation. These interventions include cognitive restructuring and exposure response prevention. Also explored are links to other research results from psychology and cognitive science, including focused distraction, and the effects of music and physical exercise. In addition to developing new interventions, existing design-fixation interventions can also be supplemented using insights from these research results.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207