The limits of ‘adaptive’ coping: Well-being and mood reactions to stressors among women in abusive dating relationships
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coping is typically thought to be adaptive if it reduces immediate distress and promotes well-being. However, coping strategies might appear beneficial in a given situation, but when considered in the broader stressor context, those situational benefits may actually undermine well-being. Two studies (N = 473 and N = 80 women) demonstrated that, in the context of psychologically or physically abusive dating relationships, coping orientations were rooted in women's stressor history (prior assault trauma) and elevated emotion-focused and lower problem-focused efforts were predictive of greater depressive symptoms. Yet, in response to a stressor video that acted as a reminder of women's abusive experiences (but not to a stressor video unrelated to abuse), affective benefits (lower hostility, higher positive agency) were associated with abused women's emotion-focused coping endorsements, but were not linked to problem-focused coping. It seems that in some contexts, reduced distress might limit active efforts to alter a dysfunctional situation.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it