Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Social phobia in clinical studies is vividly associated with extensive disability and reduced quality of life. It is difficult to obtain a clear portrayal of the impairment associated with social phobia in community samples. Furthermore, it has been unclear in prior studies to what extent indices were attributable to social phobia as opposed to comorbid major depression. The authors examined relevant data from the Ontario Health Survey Mental Health Supplement. METHOD: The Ontario Health Survey Mental Health Supplement, a survey of more than 8,000 residents of Ontario, Canada, aged 15-64, used the University of Michigan Composite International Diagnostic Interview to assign DSM-III-R diagnoses. Several indicators of disability and quality of life were included. The authors compared these indices for persons with and without social phobia and adjusted where indicated for the effects of major depression and relevant sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: Persons with social phobia were impaired on a broad spectrum of measures, ranging from dropping out of school to experiencing disability in one's main activity. They were also significantly more likely than persons without social phobia to rate themselves as "low functioning" on the Quality of Well-Being Scale and to report dissatisfaction with many aspects of life. Depressive comorbidity seemed to contribute only modestly to these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Social phobia can be a serious, disabling anxiety disorder associated with marked reduction in quality of life. Impairment in social phobia is substantial, even in the absence of comorbid major depression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".