Structured writing about current stressors: The benefits of developing plans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the health outcomes of structured writing about everyday stressors, 64 undergraduates selected a stressful event with which they were currently dealing, and wrote about it at home on three occasions in 1 week. Two forms of writing were manipulated: expressive writing – exploring one's thoughts and feelings about the stressor; and planful writing – developing plans to deal with the problem. Appraisals of control and efficacy were investigated as mediators. Expressive writing yielded no health benefits and did not affect appraisals, but planful writing did. Whereas non-planners' levels of negative affect (NA) remained stable across writing days, planners initially experienced higher NA, but their NA decreased significantly across writing days. Planful writers, relative to non-planners, felt less control over their emotions and less confidence in resolving their problem, but it was non-planners who experienced an increase in stress-related symptoms following writing. Appraisals did not mediate the physical health 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".