MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063282638 · doi:10.1177/0265407509347836

Social support, social constraint, and affect in spouses of women with breast cancer: The role of cognitive processing

2010· article· en· W2063282638 on OpenAlexaff
Mary A. Sheridan, Marne L. Sherman, Tamarha Pierce, Bruce E. Compas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social and Personal Relationships · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)SpousePsychologySocial supportCognitionBreast cancerConstraint (computer-aided design)Clinical psychologyStructural equation modelingPath analysis (statistics)Developmental psychologyCancerSocial psychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social support and constraint may impact cognitive processing of traumatic or stressful events, thereby influencing adjustment. This study tested a path model accounting for positive and negative affect in male spouses of women with breast cancer (N = 105). The model examined support and constraint from the patient and others, as well as mediators of cancer-related intrusive thoughts and avoidance. Constraint from the patient was associated with affect in the healthy spouse. The relationship with positive affect was mediated by avoidance, while the relationship with negative affect was mediated by intrusive thoughts. Support from others was directly linked to positive affect. Spouses who perceive social constraint from the patient may experience poorer psychological adjustment due to impeded cognitive processing of the cancer experience.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social and Personal RelationshipsSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207