Validation du questionnaire d'éreutophobie de la Salpětrière
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the main psychometric characteristics of the Salpêtrière Erythrophobia Questionnaire (SEQ) in a clinical and non-clinical sample. METHOD: Patients with social phobia (SP) (n = 212), patients with other anxiety disorders (n = 146), and participants from the general population (n = 171) were distributed in the 3 study groups. They completed the SEQ as well as several anxiety and depression scales. Erythrophobia was diagnosed according to standardized criteria and assessed using the Clinical Global Impression Scale. RESULTS: The SEQ scale factor pattern is clear, with only 1 factor explaining 83.9% of total score and a Cronbach's alpha consistency coefficient of 0.96. The SEQ score is significantly correlated to a dimensional hetero-evaluation of the fear of blushing (rho = 0.91) and SP measures (rho = 0.23 to 0.55). The SEQ mean score is higher in the SP group and even higher in the erythrophobia group. A score of 7 out of 24 makes it possible to identify erythrophobia with 92.1% sensitivity and 87.7% specificity. The SEQ test-retest reliability at 15-day interval is satisfactory (ICC = 0.83). CONCLUSION: The SEQ is a valid and sensitive tool to screen and measure erythrophobia. It can be used in psychopathological and therapeutic studies of this pathology.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".