Coping Following Acquired Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the determinants and correlates of coping styles in the chronic phase following acquired brain injury. DESIGN: Chart review. SETTING: Outpatient rehabilitation center. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-six persons with an acquired brain injury who were more than 6 months postinjury. MEASURES: Utrecht Coping List, Symptom Checklist 90, Stroop Color Word Test, and the 15-Word Learning Test. RESULTS: Neuropsychological performance did not influence the use of coping styles. Persons with higher levels of educational attainment most often reported active problem-focused coping styles. Persons with a long time period since injury most often used passive reactions. More use of passive coping styles and less seeking of social support contributed significantly to higher levels of subjective complaints. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive functions do not influence coping style. Passive emotion-focused coping styles in the chronic phase after injury are maladaptive. These findings emphasize the importance of training of adaptive coping styles as rehabilitation targets in the chronic phase, especially for persons with lower educational attainment.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".