Social phobia treated as a problem in social functioning: a controlled comparison of two behavioural group approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Treatments for social phobia result typically in significant anxiety and avoidance reduction; the repercussions in terms of social functioning, however, are not clear. This controlled study compared two approaches designed to improve the social functioning of social phobics. METHOD: Sixty-eight socially phobic patients were randomly assigned to two treatments focused on improving interpersonal relationships either with or without social skills training or a waiting list; 60 completed treatment and 59 a 1-year follow-up. Treatment was administered in small groups, 14 sessions altogether. RESULTS: No clinically meaningful change was observed during the waiting period. A statistically significant and equivalent improvement obtained in both treatment conditions. CONCLUSION: Both treatments resulted in reduced anxiety, avoidance, general psychopathology and better social functioning that maintained over follow-up. Continuing improvement in remission rates was noted; fully 60% of the patients no longer fulfilled criteria for social phobia at the end of 1-year follow-up.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".