Adaptation of movement decoupling for compulsive joint cracking: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compulsive joint cracking is a body-focused repetitive behavior (BFRB), which often results in negative social feedback due to its characteristic sound. While behavioral techniques are recommended in BFRBs, no published studies or case reports exist specifically for compulsive joint cracking. The authors report the case of DZ, who engaged in severe joint cracking of his knuckles and, at times, his back. The individual was assessed with an adapted version of the Generic BFRB Scale (GBS). DZ was instructed on how to perform decoupling, a technique that has shown efficacy in other BFRBs. He was also advised to use "fidget devices" that mimic aspects of the dysfunctional behavior in a less conspicuous way. Scores on the GBS were reduced by almost 50%, which corresponded with DZ's subjective appraisal of feeling more in control. Randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the (differential) efficacy these techniques to ameliorate compulsive joint cracking.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".