MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051040487 · doi:10.1177/0146167210394204

Daily Cognitive Appraisals, Daily Affect, and Long-Term Depressive Symptoms: The Role of Self-Esteem and Self-Concept Clarity in the Stress Process

2011· article· en· W2051040487 on OpenAlexaff
Sharon C. Lee-Flynn, Georgia Pomaki, Anita DeLongis, Jeremy C. Biesanz, Eli Puterman

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYPsychologyStressorAffect (linguistics)Self-esteemCognitionPsychological interventionDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyVulnerability (computing)Social psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study investigated how self-esteem and self-concept clarity are implicated in the stress process both in the short and long term. Initial and 2-year follow-up interviews were completed by 178 participants from stepfamily unions. In twice-daily structured diaries over 7 days, participants reported their main family stressor, cognitive appraisals (perceived stressor threat and stressor controllability), and negative affect. Results of multilevel modeling indicated that high self-esteem ameliorated the effect of daily negative cognitive appraisals on daily negative affect. Self-concept clarity also buffered the effect of low self-self-esteem on depressive symptoms 2 years later. Our findings point to the vulnerability of those having low self-esteem or low self-concept clarity in terms of both short- and long-term adaptation to stress. They indicate the need for the consideration of such individual differences in designing stress management interventions.

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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations147
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality and Social Psychology BulletinSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207