MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4245830978 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14644821.v1

Characteristics, Correlates, and Experiences of Emetophobia: An Exploratory Study

2021· preprint· en· W4245830978 on OpenAlexaff
Megan R. Pearson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisgustAnxietyPsychologyCognitionVigilance (psychology)Clinical psychologyExploratory researchDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyAngerPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emetophobia, a fear of vomiting or vomit, appears to be more common and consequential than generally thought, and has recently become a growing focus of research and clinical attention. The purposes of this survey-based study were to provide support for existing research evidence, and to investigate emetophobia in novel ways based largely within a cognitive-behavioural framework. Individuals with emetophobia exhibited scores that appear likely to be clinically and practically meaningful on measures of relevant constructs, particularly visceral anxiety, body vigilance, perceived control, and disgust; emetophobic fears appeared to be somewhat distinct from other manifestations of health anxiety. Related cognitions and safety behaviours were assessed with pilot measures. Emetophobia was generally found to have an early onset, chronic course, and strong negative impact in numerous functional domains. Participants generally indicated that their treatment experiences had produced few lasting benefits, perhaps in part due to some potentially unique characteristics of these fears.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes→French-language works237,207→