1st Sea Ice Proxy (SIP) Working Group workshop, Montreal, Canada 7-9 March 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevailing view is that individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are able to think rationally about their obsessive concerns and are thus able to recognize them as senseless. However, clinical observations indicate that at least some obsessive-compulsives do not regard their symptoms as unreasonable or excessive, and their ideas have been characterized as overvalued or delusional. In the present paper the concepts of obsessions, overvalued ideas, and delusions are discussed and compared, and the available studies of insight among obsessive-compulsives are reviewed. It is concluded that obsessive-compulsive ideas can not satisfactorily be dichotomized according to patients' insight, and that the notion of a continuum of strength of obsessive-compulsive beliefs is more appropriate. The relationship between degree of obsessive-compulsive conviction and outcome of therapy remains unclear. Methodological issues that complicate our understanding of OCD are considered, and theories of delusions are examined in relation to their development in OCD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".