MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314905087 · doi:10.5127/jep.042414

“It's not just about being judged”: Interpersonal distrust uniquely contributes to social anxiety

2016· article· en· W2314905087 on OpenAlexaff
Mathew G. Fetzner, Michelle J. N. Teale Sapach, Myriah K. Mulvogue, R. Nicholas Carleton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychopathology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistrustPsychologyInterpersonal communicationSocial anxietyAnxietyFear of negative evaluationInterpersonal relationshipClinical psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fears of evaluation are central to defining social anxiety disorder (SAD); notwithstanding, evidence suggests that interpersonal distrust and perceived ineffectiveness are distinct constructs, prevalent among individuals with SAD. To date, no studies have assessed the independent contributions of interpersonal distrust and perceived ineffectiveness to SAD severity beyond fears of evaluation. In total 151 community-dwelling adults (80% women) with anxiety histories completed questionnaires as part of a larger study. Hierarchal regression analyses indicated that interpersonal distrust, but not perceived ineffectiveness, contributed significant amounts of variance to SAD severity after partitioning out variance from depressive symptoms and fear of negative and positive evaluation. Concertedly, findings suggest that although fears of evaluation are seminal to SAD severity, distrust of others may also uniquely exacerbate symptoms of social anxiety. Clinical and research implications are discussed herein.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental PsychopathologySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207