MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998589880 · doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2704_9

Inner Representations, Coping, and Posttraumatic Stress Symptomatology in a Community Sample of Trauma Survivors

2005· article· en· W1998589880 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

VenueBasic and Applied Social Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)PsychologyChecklistClinical psychologyPosttraumatic stressDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To assess whether coping styles mediated the relation between inner representations and posttraumatic stress symptomatology, a community sample of self-defined trauma survivors (N = 95) completed the World Assumptions Scale, Ways of Coping Checklist—Revised, and Trauma Symptom Inventory. Regression analyses indicted that individuals with more positive inner representations reported experiencing less symptomatology and tended to use more active and less passive coping strategies. Furthermore, the relation between inner representations and the extent of symptomatology was mediated through the use of passive coping strategies, although the latter 2 variables were likely reciprocally related. The implications of these findings for the well-being of trauma survivors were 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 score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.340 · 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