Psychological Response & Perceived Risk Associated with Coronavirus Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by WHO as it is found to be excessively transmissible & to spread throughout the world. The disease has caused a worldwide impact because of the need to establish worldwide activity by extensive social distancing and quarantine due to the daily rising death toll. Through this study, we examined intend to examine the psychological effects, perceptual vulnerability, and perceived stress developed among the general population. Methodology: The study was conducted from 2nd March to 26th May 2020. A total of 2188 of subjects replied to our informal online survey internationally. The respondent's demographic details and data regarding precautionary measures, perceptual vulnerability, perceived stress, and level of susceptibility of COVID-19 was collected. The perceived stress scale (PSS-10) was used for assessment of perceived anxiety, stigmatization, and fear of developing COVID-19. Results: As per the study findings, moderate perceived stress was observed among 66.6% of the respondents. Among the protective measures, washing hands was most frequent 56.2%, but the use of face mask wasn't widespread, i.e. 48.9% rarely or never used face masks. 37.1% felt anxious around sick people, 58.5% were usually bothered by the people sneezing without covering their mouths. 32.3% occasionally felt agitated because of no control over the current situation & 18.6% frequently felt stressed and/or nervous. The contact history revealed that 11.2% had close contact, 20.9% had a non-close contact, and 12.9% were those who had suspected connection with a confirmed case. Conclusion: Evidently, COVID-19 has numerous psychological impacts, and the responses vary due to perceived vulnerability & stress. The social distancing, disease fear, and quarantine may have some negative effects which may have some lasting consequences on general population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".