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 OpenAlexafffund
Sarah Newth, Anita DeLongis

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

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

Citations96
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and HealthSame topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesFrench-language works237,207