MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Psychological Models of Obsessive Compulsive and Spectrum Disorders

2012· book· en· W302028641 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie E. Cassin, Neil A. Rector

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2012
Typebook
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConceptualizationAnxietyBody dysmorphic disorderPsychotherapistPsychoanalytic theoryHoarding (animal behavior)Anxiety disorderObsessive compulsiveBroad spectrumClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current chapter provides an overview of psychoanalytic and behavioral theories of obsessive compulsive disorder and related conditions (i.e., hoarding, hypochondriasis, body dysmorphic disorder, trichotillomania, and tic disorders), and reviews the empirical support for these psychological theories. While Freud correctly ascribed compulsive rituals to an anxiety-reducing role, the more fundamental tenets of his drive model of obsessional development, and the subsequent focus on the role of defense mechanisms, have remained largely untested. In contrast, behavioral theories of obsessive compulsive and spectrum disorders revolutionized the psychological conceptualization and treatment of these disorders, and there is strong evidence accumulated over the past 40 years demonstrating the seminal role of operant conditioning processes in the maintenance of obsessive compulsive and related spectrum disorders. The evidence supporting the role of classical conditioning in symptom development is less clear; however, learning theory has contributed a partial understanding of the etiology of these conditions.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207