Quelques questions fréquentes ou non résolues concernant l’anxiété et les troubles anxieux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of anxiety disorders shows a considerable evolution in the last decades concerning the overall conceptualization of the disorders and concerning their treatment. However many questions remain open. For instance, what is the importance of anxiety disorders in terms of public health? What is their influence on other factors affecting populations' health, e.g. substance abuse, and especially smoking? Questions also remain concerning the underlying mechanisms, whether biological or psychological. For instance, is it possible to identify cognitive schemas leading to pathological anxiety? What are the physiological manifestations of the hypervigilance and hyperreactivity that are described clinically? Despite the successive classifications, some issues are unsettled concerning the delimitation of anxiety disorders. For instance, do obsessive-compulsive disorders belong to anxiety disorders or preferably to a different family of mental disorders constituting a spectrum of obsessive-compulsive disorders? Several practical issues remain open for clinicians: what is the importance of specific therapeutic factors in cognitive-behavioral therapies? Is there a psychoanalytical method and a psychopharmacological therapy specific to anxiety disorders? Concrete questions also deserve attention in relation with therapeutic modalities. Are group treatments superior to individual ones? What is the role of emotion in cognitive-behavioral treatment? Is it useful to associate self-regulation strategies like meditation? Do self-help organizations, that are numerous and helpful in that field, have a role concerning psychotherapy?
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".