MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017517738 · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa7503_04

On Assessing Individual Differences in Rumination on Sadness

2000· article· en· W2017517738 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRuminationSadnessRSSPsychologyDiscriminant validityConvergent validityDistressMoodScale (ratio)Test validityPsychometricsClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyAngerPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Rumination on Sadness Scale (RSS), an individual-difference measure of rumination on sadness, was developed as an alternative to the Ruminative Responses scale of the Response Styles Questionnaire (RRRSQ; Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991). Research has shown the RRRSQ to consist of multiple, not highly intercorrelated factors; only I factor explicitly addresses rumination. In Study 1, a 1-factor solution to a principal components analysis was shown to hold for responses to the RSS. The RSS was also shown to be reliable. In Study 2, convergent and discriminant validity of the RSS were assessed. In Study 3, individuals with high RSS scores exhibited more distress regarding current concerns with the introduction of a delay period (to allow them to ruminate) after a sad mood induction.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.333 · 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