The Impact of Group Feedback on Self-Perceptions Following Videotape Exposure in CBT for Social Anxiety Disorder
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
Video feedback following social anxiety exposures improves self-perceptions. Clinical studies have not examined whether feedback from group members has incremental benefit beyond that of viewing the tape itself. Sixty-seven individuals with social anxiety disorder completed videotaped exposure during group based cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). After participants viewed their taped exposure, group members and therapists gave feedback. Participants completed ratings of anxiety and performance before and after taping their exposure, after viewing the video themselves, and after receiving group feedback. Appraisal of social concerns were assessed after taping, viewing, and group feedback. There were significant improvements in anxiety, performance, and decreased social concerns across time points. Comparing only the time points of after viewing and after receiving group feedback, the same pattern emerged for anxiety, performance, and appraisal of social concerns, with moderate to large effect sizes. Group feedback led to ratings that exceeded their own initial evaluation of their video. Video feedback in group CBT that also includes feedback from others may improve clinical 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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