Preliminary Evidence for Heterogeneity of Beliefs About Auditory Verbal Hallucinations Intent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Perceptions of patient's auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs), commonly termed voices, have important impacts on their everyday lives. Despite research emphasizing the consequences of malevolent voices, preliminary results suggest that beliefs about voices may not be mutually exclusive. As such, we aimed to characterize the heterogeneity of beliefs about AVHs and describe their clinical correlates. We recruited 78 patients referred to a Voices group therapy for refractory and distressing voices. Based on the Revised Beliefs About Voices Questionnaire, clustering analysis yielded four subgroups of patients with distinct pattern of beliefs about AVHs. These subgroups differed significantly in terms of affective disturbances, engagement, and resistance to their voices. Furthermore, no significant changes in beliefs about voices were observed after 6 weeks. Results of the current study suggest that the heterogeneity regarding the beliefs about AVHs should be targeted in treatment to reduce their associated negative outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".