Struggling to manage: A constructivist grounded theory of hoarding behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hoarding behaviours can cause numerous problems including health risks, family conflict, and removal of children and pets from the home. Hoarding research typically adopts a cognitive‐behavioural framework and uses quantitative methods; we aimed to further understand the development of hoarding behaviour from a qualitative perspective. Constructivist grounded theory methods were employed across two phases of data collection via semi‐structured interviews with participants identifying as exhibiting hoarding behaviours. Provisional categories were developed in phase one; further data analysis in phase two helped to establish our grounded theory. The theoretical core is a struggle to manage possessions and life, including life transitions such as moving to a new home and starting or finishing university. ‘Struggling to manage’ incorporates emotional struggles with possessions and the impacts of personal trauma and overwhelming life events. A further category, ‘Trying to overcome hoarding’ incorporates participants' efforts to manage and overcome their hoarding. Findings highlight the importance of viewing hoarding in a holistic context.
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 | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".