MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991532114 · doi:10.1080/0887044042000193451

Individual differences, mood, and coping with Chronic pain in Rheumatoid Arthritis: a daily process analysis

2004· article· en· W1991532114 on OpenAlex
Sarah Newth, Anita DeLongis

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNeuroticismCoping (psychology)Extraversion and introversionPsychologyMoodConscientiousnessAgreeablenessOpenness to experienceClinical psychologyPersonalityBig Five personality traitsChronic painRheumatoid arthritisPsychiatryMedicineSocial psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines individual differences in coping and associated health outcomes as they unfold across time. Twice daily for one week, 71 individuals with Rheumatoid Arthritis reported their pain, coping efforts, and negative mood via structured daily records. The five factor model of personality (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness) and disease status were also assessed. Multi-level statistical models examining within and between person variability indicated significant temporal associations from coping to pain and bi-directional associations between mood and pain within days. Furthermore, findings suggest that coping use and coping effectiveness were moderated by personality. Implications for models of coping with chronic pain, as well as clinical applications, are discussed.

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)0.001
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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.321 · 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