MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7002378262

A Multimethod Investigation of Beliefs about Losing Control in Anxiety-Related Disorders

2024· dissertation· en· W7002378262 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHarmSet (abstract data type)AnxietyControl (management)Task (project management)Social anxietyPerceived controlSample (material)Fear of negative evaluationSocial relation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maladaptive beliefs are proposed to be critical in the development and maintenance of anxiety-related disorders. One commonly reported maladaptive belief domain concerns negative beliefs people hold about losing control. These concerns about the likelihood and consequences of losing control over one’s behaviour, thoughts, emotions and/or physical reactions appear to be prevalent in clinical and non-clinical samples. This program of research aimed to better assess, define and delineate the nature of these beliefs using a multi-method approach. In Study 1, undergraduate psychology students (N = 126) were given false feedback that they were either at high or low risk of losing control, and then completed a social interaction task with an actor. The belief that one was at high risk of losing control led to greater anticipatory anxiety leading up to the social interaction task, significant doubt about one’s social performance and significantly more negative post-event processing. In Study 2, an unselected sample of undergraduate participants (N = 21), half of whom met criteria for one or more anxiety-related disorders, was interviewed about their beliefs about losing control. Losses were defined as negative, multifaceted cognitive-behavioural phenomena which included thoughts, behaviours and emotions. Common consequences were perceived harm to oneself or others, powerlessness, and unpleasant emotions during (e.g., sadness, frustration, anxiety) and following (e.g., regret, shame, humiliation) a reported loss of control. In Study 3, undergraduate students (N = 440) completed an expanded set of items designed to better measure maladaptive beliefs about losing control, leading to the assessment of the Beliefs About Losing Control Inventory, Second Edition (BALCI-II). An exploratory factor analysis indicated the BALCI-II captured several domains of feared consequences of losing control: 1) overwhelming emotions 2) dangerous behaviour and 3) madness and 4) inflated beliefs about probability/severity of those losses. The BALCI-II was found to be psychometrically sound and predictive of symptoms of OCD and SAD, above and beyond existing disorder-specific maladaptive beliefs. Implications for cognitive theory and therapy 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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)Same topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207