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 OpenAlexaff
Daniel C. Kopala‐Sibley, Darcy A. Santor

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

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

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCognitive Behaviour TherapySame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207