MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125156741 · doi:10.1002/jclp.22174

Nonsuicidal Self‐Injury and Affect Regulation: Recent Findings From Experimental and Ecological Momentary Assessment Studies and Future Directions

2015· review· en· W2125156741 on OpenAlexaff
Chloe A. Hamza, Teena Willoughby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyExperience sampling methodCINAHLAffect (linguistics)DistractionContext (archaeology)Poison controlClinical psychologyInjury preventionCognitive psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryPsychological interventionMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Although research indicates that nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) may be used as a form of emotion regulation, studies have largely relied on the use of retrospective self-report data, which limits inferences about directionality of effects. Recently, researchers have started to employ lab-based experimental (e.g., guided imagery, acute pain) and moment sampling approaches to the study of NSSI. METHODS: In the present study, we conducted a review of this recent literature, using several electronic databases (e.g., PsychINFO, ERIC, CINAHL). RESULTS: We identified 18 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Findings indicated that the administration of pain was associated with decreases in negative affect among both self-injurers and noninjurers, although these declines were more pronounced for self-injurers in some studies. CONCLUSIONS: We discuss findings within the context of two central theories (i.e., opponent-process theory and distraction theory) and offer several recommendations for future research in this area.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.583
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations72
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207