MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991145276 · doi:10.1080/15283488.2011.540736

Identity Processing Styles and Defense Styles During Emerging Adulthood: Implications for Life Distress

2011· article· en· W1991145276 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

VenueIdentity · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyStyle (visual arts)DistressIdentity (music)MediationNeuroticismPsychological distressLife styleDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologySocial psychologyPersonalityMental healthPsychiatryPsychotherapistSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relationships among identity processing styles, defense styles, and life distress were examined in a sample of 276 emerging adults (M = 19.71 years). Respondents completed the Identity Style Inventory, Revised; the Defense Style Questionnaire; and the Life Distress Inventory. Correlations and structural equation analyses revealed that the informational identity style was positively related to the mature defense style, all three identity styles were positively related to the neurotic defense style, and the diffuse-avoidant identity style was positively related to the immature defense style. Mediation analyses revealed that the positive relationship between the diffuse-avoidant style and life distress was mediated by the immature defense style. The results suggest potential implications of the diffuse-avoidant style for maladjustment through the use of immature defenses.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.300 · 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