MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393346122 · doi:10.1016/j.psycom.2024.100169

Delusional ideation is associated with social imagery: Felt presence, social anxiety, empathy and loneliness

2024· article· en· W4393346122 on OpenAlexaff
Kennedy Robertson, Ian Gold, Samuel P. L. Veissière, Rébecca Robillard, Elizaveta Solomonova

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatry Research Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessEmpathyPsychologySocial anxietyAnxietyIdeationPsychotherapistClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research suggests that delusional ideation (DI) may have social component to its phenomenology and underlying mechanisms. This study investigated associations between delusional ideation and factors of social imagery in healthy adults using the COVID-19 pandemic as a context of increased social threat perception. 1,854 participants completed an online survey. DI was assessed using the Peters Delusional Ideation (PDI) scale, and social imagery was investigated using the Other Experiences Questionnaire (OEQ, felt presence), the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS), the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI, empathy), and the UCLA Loneliness Scale. All aspects of social imagery were positively associated with DI. The strongest predictor of PDI score was felt presence, followed by loneliness, LSAS social fear dimension, IRI (empathic concern and empathy for fictional characters) scales. We propose that delusions and social imagery may share common mechanisms and increased propensity for imagining others may contribute to development of delusions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.352 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatry Research CommunicationsSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207