Examination stress as an ecological inducer of cortisol and psychological responses to stress in undergraduate students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to investigate basic methodological issues related to the usage of an examination stress protocol in studies of psychoneuroendocrinology. In the present study, 57 undergraduate students served as participants. All subjects provided salivary samples and completed psychological inventories during a low examination stress period and again during a high examination stress period. Salivary samples were analyzed for cortisol. Three major findings were observed. First, the examination stress protocol proved to be an effective trigger of elevations in both psychological measures of stress and in cortisol levels. Second, sex differences were observed in cortisol levels, such that males showed an elevation in cortisol during the high examination stress session whereas females did not. Finally, no significant correlations were observed between elevations in psychological measures of stress and elevations in cortisol levels. These findings suggest that the examination stress protocol used in the present study effectively elevated both psychological stress and cortisol levels. Furthermore, these findings suggest that there are biological differences in how males and females respond to stress. Finally, no evidence was found to suggest a relationship between psychological and hormonal levels of stress. Together, these findings suggest the need to better define and consider the implications of both the specific measures of stress being used and individual differences in the subject samples in psychoendocrine studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".