Personality, Cognitive Appraisal and Adjustment in Chronic Pain Patients
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
This study investigated the relationship between clinical personality patterns and cognitive appraisal as well as their repercussions on adjustment to chronic pain in a sample of 91 patients. It was predicted that clinical personality patterns would be related to adjustment and cognitive appraisal processes, whereas cognitive appraisals would be related to anxiety, depression and levels of perceived pain. The instruments used were as follows: the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, the Cognitive Appraisal Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Multiple regression analyses, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and the Mann Whitney U-test were used to analyse the data obtained. The results show that certain clinical personality patterns were associated with poor adjustment to chronic pain. The use of cognitive appraisal of harm predicted higher anxiety levels and greater perceived pain in chronic pain patients. The use of cognitive appraisals of challenge predicted lower depression levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it