MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028619849 · doi:10.1007/bf02879918

Interpretations of ambiguous social situations and cardiovascular responses in adolescents

2007· article· en· W2028619849 on OpenAlexaff
Edith Chen, Karen A. Matthews, Fan Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Behavioral Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsHealth psychologyBlood pressurePsychologyAmbulatory blood pressureAmbulatoryPerceptionReactivity (psychology)Developmental psychologyHeart rateClinical psychologySocial psychologyMedicinePublic healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous research has documented effects of ambiguous outcome social situations on individual differences in cardiovascular reactivity in laboratory contexts. PURPOSE: This study tested whether interpretations of ambiguous social situations are associated with daily life cardiovascular responses using ambulatory approaches. METHODS: There were 206 high school adolescents assessed on interpretations of ambiguous social situations in the laboratory who then completed ambulatory monitoring of blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) for 2 days. RESULTS: Adolescents who perceived threat during ambiguous situations exhibited higher systolic BP when talking to others compared to occasions of not talking with anyone, whereas the opposite was true for those with low threat perception. For high-threat adolescents, higher systolic BP was found when interacting with friends, whereas for low threat adolescents, lower systolic BP was found when interacting with parents. Greater threat interpretations were also associated with elevated HR at night. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how adolescents perceive social interactions may help in gauging their daily cardiovascular responses.

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Behavioral MedicineSame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207