Ruminative thought style and depressed mood
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
Recent research has suggested that the measure most commonly used to assess rumination, the Response Style Questionnaire (RSQ; L. D. Butler & S. Nolen-Hoeksema, 1994), may be heavily biased by depressive symptoms, thereby restricting the scope of research exploring this construct. This article offers a broader conceptualization of rumination, which includes positive, negative, and neutral thoughts as well as past and future-oriented thoughts. The first two studies describe the development and evaluation of the Ruminative Thought Style Questionnaire (RTS), a psychometrically sound measure of the general tendency to ruminate. Further, the scale is comprised of a single factor and shows high internal consistency, suggesting that rumination does encompasses the factors mentioned. The final study involved a longitudinal diary investigation of rumination and mood over time. Results suggest that the RTS assesses a related, but separate, construct than does the RSQ. RTS scores predicted future depressed mood beyond the variance accounted for by initial depressed mood whereas RSQ scores did not. The implications of these results and directions for future research are 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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