MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W833565283 · doi:10.1177/009164711304100102

When Good People Have Bad Thoughts: Religiosity and the Emotional Regulation of Guilt-Inducing Intrusive Thoughts

2013· article· en· W833565283 on OpenAlex
Michelle Hale, David A. Clark

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychology and Theology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReligiosityPsychologyTraitAnxietyTrait anxietySocial psychologyDepression (economics)CognitionClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated whether guilt associated with unwanted intrusive thoughts characterized the elevated obsessionality previously reported in highly religious individuals. Twenty-four high religious Christian and 55 low religious undergraduates completed self-report measures of religiosity, guilt, obsessionality, and negative cognitions. As hypothesized, the highly religious group reported significantly more generalized guilt, obsessionality, and guilt-related negative thoughts, but not more anxiety or depression. Importance of religion and generalized guilt were the only significant predictors of obsessionality in the total sample. Results suggest heightened generalized (trait) guilt plays an important role in the elevated obsessionality of highly religious. Based on the current measures, there was no evidence that guilt over uncontrollable intrusive thoughts played a role in the obsessionality of highly religious individuals.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.273 · 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