Social Phobia as a Consequence of Brain Defects <i>with Graciela Pīneyro</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals complaining of social phobia often provide vivid accounts of their distress in terms of various physical sensations (e.g. sweating, blushing, tachycardia, and tremulousness) they experience when, for example, entering a cafeteria, a classroom or meeting strangers at a party or imagining an interview lying ahead. At their peak, a vast range of somatic reactions include, among others: (1) palpitations and cool extremities and pallor (peripheral vaso-constriction); (2) respiratory difficulties; (3) the urge to urinate, intestinal cramps and alternating diarrhea and constipation, and vomiting; (4) muscle tension in the face, trembling, and incoordination of the hands; (5) speech difficulties due to troubled breathing and incoordination of muscles involved in articulation (“tongue-tied”). These are also accompanied by blunted perceptiveness and diminished responsiveness. Although reported subjectively, these are not confabulations; many of these somatic responses can be independently measured. What could account for these very physical reactions experienced powerfully and bafflingly in seemingly anodyne circumstances? A possible account could be that the brain processes involved in the regulation of the above reactions are defective. It has been suggested in this vein, that, “it is tempting to speculate that social phobics either experience greater or more sustained increases or are more sensitive to normal stress-mediated catecholamine elevations” (Liebowitz, Gorman, Fyer, & Klein, 1985, p. 729). Background With the exception of the brief statement of Liebowitz et al. (1985) a neurobiological formulation of social phobia has – to our knowledge – never been published.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".