Cognitive Restructuring Before Versus After Exposure: Effect on Expectancy and Outcome in Individuals With Claustrophobia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maximizing the discrepancy between expected and actual outcomes during exposure (i.e., expectancy violation) is thought to optimize inhibitory learning. The current study examined Craske et al.’s suggestion that engaging in cognitive restructuring (CR) before exposure prematurely reduces expectancy and mitigates outcomes. Participants ( N = 93) with claustrophobia were randomly assigned to either 15 minutes of CR before exposure ( CR Before) or 15 minutes of CR after exposure ( CR After). Although the CR Before condition experienced greater expectancy reduction before exposure than the CR After condition, both groups experienced similar overall expectancy reduction by the end of the intervention. Groups experienced similar gains, with large significant improvement at posttreatment and follow-up. Results suggest that both cognitive therapy and exposure therapy lead to expectancy reduction, but that the order of these interventions does not impact outcome. Clinicaltrials.org registration #NCT03628105.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it