Watching the Russian–Ukrainian War: Comparison Between Europe and North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reports indicate that millions of people have been watching the Russian-Ukrainian war that broke out on 24 February 2022. This research studies the relationship between watching the war and psychological reactions in 1260 university students who responded to an online questionnaire related to watching the war on various media forms. Data were collected from April to October 2022 from five national samples from Europe (Germany, Finland, and the Czech Republic) and North America (Canada and the U.S.). Since European countries are assumed to have greater ties with the countries at war, anxiety, anger, and denial while watching the war should be greater in European participants than in North American ones. Worry about the war should be greater when more hours are spent watching the war, and anxiety related to the war should decrease with self-efficacy. ANOVA results showed that European participants spent more hours watching the war, worried more, and experienced greater distress than North American ones. Path analysis showed that having relatives, friends, or colleagues in Ukraine or Russia was associated with worry about the war through hours spent watching it. Self-efficacy was negatively related to anxiety. Psychological distress related to watching the war was far-reaching, extending to countries beyond Ukraine and Russia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".