MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409695700 · doi:10.1186/s40359-025-02622-2

Fear and concern about the outbreak of a world war: validation of an instrument in eight Latin American countries (Third World War scale)

2025· article· en· W4409695700 on OpenAlexaff
Christian R. Mejía, Renzo Felipe Carranza Esteban, Óscar Mamani-Benito, Elvira G. Zamora-Huaringa, Leonel Vega-Useche, Valeria J. Padilla-F, Deisy P Almada-Lesmo, Jorge Andrés Castrillón-Lozano, Alan A Martínez-Bourdier, José Manuel Armada Pacheco, Aldo Álvarez-Risco, Shyla Del-Aguila-Arcentales, Neal M. Davies, Jaime A. Yáñez

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLatin AmericansWorld War IIScale (ratio)First world warSocial psychologyPolitical scienceHistoryGeographyLawCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Since the cold war, the population have not felt so much fear about the outbreak of the Third World War, sensation revived with the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to validate a test in Latin America that measures fear perception and concern about a world war. METHODOLOGY: It is an instrumental study using Google Forms. It obtained 1684 participants in eight countries in Latin America. The creation of the first instrument was based on previous questionnaires that measured fear in the face of unexpected events, and other specific questions were added in the context of the war. Subsequently, the entire validation process was carried out. It was calculated the values of skewness, kurtosis, and communalities. RESULTS: = 139,85, df = 13, p = 0.001; RMR = 0.050; GFI = 0.980; CFI = 0,990; TLI = 0.980; and RMSEA = 0.080). The global Cronbach's alpha = 0.92 (for factor 1 = 0.98, and factor 2 = 0.88). DISCUSSION: The final instrument with seven questions allows to measure adequately general fear (factor 1), and physical and mental repercussions due to the possibility of the outbreak of a world war (factor 2).

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychologySame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207