MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390345158 · doi:10.1002/ijop.13099

Anxiety and watching the war in Ukraine

2023· article· en· W4390345158 on OpenAlexafffund
Esther R. Greenglass, Petra Begic, Petra Buchwald, Petri Karkkola, Taina Hintsa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersYork University
KeywordsWorryAnxietyPsychologySpanish Civil WarGeneralized anxietyWorld War IIClinical psychologyPandemicSocial psychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political sciencePsychiatryMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 24 February 2022, Russia attacked Ukraine. Millions of people tuned into social media to watch the war. Media exposure to disasters and large-scale violence can precipitate anxiety resulting in intrusive thoughts. This research investigates factors related to anxiety while watching the war. Since the war began during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, threat from COVID-19 is seen as a predictor of anxiety when watching the war. A theoretical model is put forward where the outcome was anxiety when watching the war, and predictors were self-reported interference of watching the war with one's studies or work, gender, worry about the war, self-efficacy and coronavirus threat. Data were collected online with independent samples of university students from two European countries close to Ukraine, Germany (n = 348) and Finland (n = 228), who filled out an anonymous questionnaire. Path analysis was used to analyse the data. Findings showed that the model was an acceptable fit to the data in each sample, and standardised regression coefficients indicated that anxiety, when watching the war, increased with interference, war worry and coronavirus threat, and decreased with self-efficacy. Women reported more anxiety when watching the war than men. Implications of the results are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.422 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of PsychologySame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207