Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews the current state of knowledge and promising new directions concerning the psychology of pandemics. Pandemics are disease outbreaks that spread globally. Historically, psychological factors have been neglected by researchers and health authorities despite evidence that pandemics are, to a large extent, psychological phenomena whereby beliefs and behaviors influence the spreading versus containment of infection. Psychological factors are important in determining ( a) adherence to pandemic mitigation methods (e.g., adherence to social distancing), ( b) pandemic-related social disruption (e.g., panic buying, racism, antilockdown protests), and ( c) pandemic-related distress and related problems (e.g., anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, prolonged grief disorder). The psychology of pandemics has emerged as an important field of research and practice during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As a scholarly discipline, the psychology of pandemics is fragmented and diverse, encompassing various psychological subspecialties and allied disciplines, but is vital for shaping clinical practice and public health guidelines for COVID-19 and future pandemics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".