MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129801978 · doi:10.1037/a0038588

When confidence comes and goes: How variation in self-efficacy moderates stressor–strain relationships.

2015· article· en· W2129801978 on OpenAlexaff
Ann C. Peng, John Schaubroeck, Jia Lin Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Health Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrapersonal communicationSelf-efficacyStressorPsychologyCoping (psychology)Clinical psychologyOccupational stressStructural equation modelingSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyInterpersonal communication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inconsistent published findings regarding a proposed buffering role of self-efficacy in stress coping led us to develop a model in which within-person variability in self-efficacy over time affects how individuals' mean levels of self-efficacy moderate the relationship between demands and psychological symptoms. Results from two independent samples (manufacturing workers and college students) supported the hypothesized interaction between demands, self-efficacy mean level, and self-efficacy variability. Demands were more positively associated with psychological strain among those with high and stable self-efficacy than those with high and variable self-efficacy. We discuss the implications of intrapersonal variability in self-efficacy for research on stress coping.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations56
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational Health PsychologySame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207