MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404890122 · doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2024.101998

Further analyses of appraisals of losing control and other OCD-related cognitions: A quasi-experimental investigation

2024· article· en· W4404890122 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea Sandstrom, Adam S. Radomsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionControl (management)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive models of OCD posit that dysfunctional beliefs contribute to the maintenance of symptoms. In addition to well-established belief domains, beliefs about losing control has been identified as a novel cognitive domain which may influence OCD phenomena, including other dysfunctional beliefs. However, the exact nature of these relationships and whether such relationships are influenced by OCD symptoms is unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the relationships between appraisals of losing control and other OCD-relevant appraisals in individuals scoring high and low on OCD symptoms. 137 participants completed a vignette task describing hypothetical scenarios relevant to OCD (doubting and aggressive thoughts) which varied in the level of losing control (high vs. low) and answered questions to assess other OCD-relevant appraisals. There was a significant main effect of losing control appraisals on other OCD-relevant appraisals in the aggressive thought vignettes but not in the doubting vignettes. OCD symptoms had a significant effect on OCD-relevant appraisals in both the aggressive thought and doubting vignettes. There were no significant interactions. Appraisals of losing control did not significantly differ in the doubting vignettes suggesting the impact of the manipulation may have been limited. Findings suggest that both appraisals of losing control and level of OCD symptoms may be associated with other OCD-relevant appraisals, however these effects may be independent of one another. • Manipulation of losing control was effective in aggressive thought vignettes. • Manipulation of losing control was not effective in doubting vignettes. • Losing control only associated with OCD appraisals in aggressive thought vignettes. • OCD symptoms were associated with OCD appraisals regardless of vignette type. • OCD symptoms and losing control did not interact to influence OCD appraisals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental PsychiatrySame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207