How Much Support Is There for the Recommendations Made to the General Population during Confinement? A Study during the First Three Days of the COVID–19 Quarantine in Spain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recommendations on lifestyles during quarantine have been proposed by researchers and institutions since the COVID–19 crisis emerged. However, most of these have never been tested under real quarantine situations or derive from older investigations conducted mostly in China and Canada in the face of infections other than COVID–19. The present study aimed at exploring the relationship between a comprehensive set of recommended lifestyles, socio–demographic, and personality variables and mood during the first stages of quarantine. Methods: A virtual snow–ball recollection technique was used to disseminate the survey across the general population in Spain starting the first day of mandatory quarantine (15 March 2020) until three days later (17 March). In total, 2683 Spanish adults (mean age = 34.86 years, SD = 13.74 years; 77.7% women) from the general population completed measures on socio–demographic, COVID–related, behavioral, personality/cognitive, and mood characteristics. Results: In the present study, depression and anger were higher than levels reported in a previous investigation before the COVID–19 crisis, while vigor, friendliness, and fatigue were lower. Anxiety levels were comparable. The expected direction of associations was confirmed for the majority of predictors. However, effect sizes were generally small and only a subset of them correlated to most outcomes. Intolerance of unpleasant emotions, neuroticism, and, to a lesser extent, agreeableness, sleep quality, young age, and time spent Internet surfing were the most robust and strongest correlates of mood states. Conclusions: Some recommended lifestyles (i.e., maintaining good quality of sleep and reducing Internet surfing) might be more important than others during the first days of quarantine. Promoting tolerance to unpleasant emotions (e.g., through online, self–managed programs) might also be of upmost importance. So far, recommendations have been made in general, but certain subgroups (e.g., certain personality profiles and young adults) might be especially vulnerable and should receive more attention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".