Investigation of Obsessions and Compulsions in Terms of Psychological Resilience in the Epidemic Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims and Objectives: In this study, obsessions and compulsions observed during the epidemic period were investigated in terms of psychological resilience. Materials and Methods: The research was conducted on a voluntary basis with 208 people (51.4% women, 48.6% men) who were exposed to the COVID 19 epidemic. Participants were given a Sociodemographic Information Form including questions about COVID 19, Vancouver Obsession–Compulsion Inventory (VOCI), and Adult Psychological Resilience Scale. Data were analyzed with Statistical Package Program for Social Science 21.0 program. Results: When the findings were examined, no difference was found between obsession–compulsion and psychological resilience in terms of total score. However, there are relationships in subdimensions. Contamination subscore of VOCI and social resources subscore of Resilience Scale for Adults were found to be higher than the others. Hoarding was higher in men, while self perception, structural style, and family cohesion were higher in women. Single participants had higher obsession–compulsion scores, whereas married participants had higher self perception and family adjustment. It was concluded that as individuals' age increased, their self perception and social competence increased. Relationships were also found in terms of both obsession–compulsion and psychological resilience with variables, such as the frequency of COVID 19 news and case follow up, the frequency of body screening for COVID 19 symptoms, the change in the frequency of cleaning, and the idea of getting psychological support. Conclusion: This research is significant when it comes to seeing the effect of a compulsive life event, such as an epidemic disease on obsessive and compulsive behaviors.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".