The quest for biological correlates of social phobia: an interim assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of this review was to assess critically the literature concerning the ongoing search for possible biological correlates of social phobia. METHODS: In addition to manual searches, Medline, Current Contents and Psych Info databases were searched for relevant publications. RESULTS: On the evidence of an extensive body of research, so far biological correlates of social phobia remain elusive. Furthermore, the majority of studies reveal by default that the neurobiological functioning of social phobics is very much like that of normal control subjects. CONCLUSION: The conceptual and methodological foundations underpinning the current research programme are discussed critically. Its main weaknesses were found to be: lack of theory to guide research and aid the interpretation of results, static comparisons between subject groups and analysis oblivious to great individual variations. Possibilities of alternative approaches to study the neurobiology of social phobia are raised. Among others, continuous and situation-specific measurement, subjects used as their own controls and neurobiological correlates of clinical improvement following psychotherapy are considered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".