Obsessif-kompulsif bozukluk semptomları için kapsamlı bir model:bilişsel ve diğer yatkınlık faktörlerinin kültürlerarası incelenmesi.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current coginitive models of the Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) symptoms focuses on the different cognitive factors. Like other nonspecific and noncognitive variables, these factors may also function as vulnerability factors. However, they have been mostly studied separately and majority of the findings in the literature come from the Western samples. Accordingly, the studies examining these factors together and the impact of the culture in these studies are sparse in number. The present study suggested a comprehensive cognitive model for OCD symptoms, including several distal and proximal vulnerability factors. It was aimed to adapt three instruments to examine the interrelationships among the vulnerability factors and OCD symptoms in different cultures. Relevant ten instruments were administered to the university students from Turkey and Canada. The analyses showed that Turkish versions of three instruments had satisfactory psychometric properties for Turkish students. These analyses also revealed some cross-cultural similarities and differences in these factors and OCD symptoms. Neuroticism, age, introversion, OCD beliefs on responsibility/threat estimation, perfectionism/certainty and thought-action fusion in likelihood dimension were found to be associated with the OCD symptoms in both Turkish and Canadian samples. The relational paths between non-specific, appraisal and control factors, and OCD symptoms were also significant in both samples. However, religiousness was only significant factor in OCD symptoms and contributed to several belief and control factors toward these symptoms, only for Turkish subjects. The analyses of the religiousness differences indicated that psychological fusion in general and in morality was more related to the religiosity for Canadian Christians. Besides, Turkish students seemed to utilize worry more for OCD symptoms; whereas, Canadian participants used self-punishment. These common and unique patterns of the relationships were discussed within relevant findings about characteristics of the religion and culture.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".