MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966403721 · doi:10.1080/16506070802694644

The Mediating Role of Automatic Thoughts in the Personality–Event–Affect Relationship

2009· article· en· W1966403721 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCognitive Behaviour Therapy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsOntario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental HealthUniversity of OttawaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAffect (linguistics)PersonalityMoodNegative moodSelf-criticismClinical psychologyCognitionDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although cognitive theory gives automatic thoughts a causal role in the onset of negative mood and depressive symptoms, little research has directly tested this relationship, and no research has examined whether automatic thoughts explain the effects of personality factors, life events, and positive mood on negative affect. Accordingly, automatic thoughts were prospectively tested as a mediator of the effects of personality vulnerability factors, positive affect, and hassles on mood. Measures of self-criticism and dependency were administered at baseline, and measures of automatic thoughts, hassles, and positive and negative affect were administered once per week for 4 weeks to 102 college students. Automatic thoughts fully mediated the effects of self-criticism and partially mediated the effects of dependency and hassles on mood. Findings suggest that negative thoughts only partially account for the relationship among personality, hassles, and mood. Results also showed that the impact of positive affect on negative affect may be mediated by the presence or absence of automatic thoughts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.361 · 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