A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial of <i>In Virtuo</i> and <i>In Vivo</i> Exposure for Spider Phobia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study compared the efficacy of virtual reality (VR) in virtuo exposure and in vivo exposure in the treatment of spider phobia. Two treatment conditions were compared to a waiting-list condition. A 3-month follow-up evaluation was conducted in order to assess the durability of the treatment effects. Participants were randomly assigned to the treatment groups. A total of 16 participants received the in virtuo treatment, and 16 received the in vivo treatment. The waiting-list condition included 11 participants. Participants received eight 1.5-hour treatment sessions. Efficacy was measured with the Fear of Spiders Questionnaire, the Spider Beliefs Questionnaire (SBQ-F), and a Behavioral Avoidance Test (BAT). In addition, a clinician administered the Structured Interview for DSM-IV to assess DSM-IV's criteria for specific phobia and severity. Clinical and statistically significant improvements were found for both groups. Differences in treatment groups were found on one of five measures of fear: greater improvement on the SBQ-F beliefs subscale was associated with in vivo exposure.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it