MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resilience and Positive Emotions: Examining the Role of Emotional Memories

2008· article· en· W2146211157 on OpenAlexaff
Frédérick L. Philippe, Serge Lecours, Geneviève Beaulieu‐Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySadnessPsychological resilienceContext (archaeology)MoodTraitNegative affectivityAnxietyPositive affectivityAutobiographical memoryDevelopmental psychologyPersonalitySocial psychologyCognitive psychologyAngerRecall

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resilience has been frequently associated with positive emotions, especially when experienced during taxing events. However, the psychological processes that might allow resilient individuals to self-generate those positive emotions have been mostly overlooked. In line with recent advances in memory research, we propose that emotional memories play an important role in the self-generation of positive emotions. The present research examined this hypothesis in two studies. Study 1 provided initial data on the validity and reliability of a measure of emotional memories networks (EMN) and showed that it had a predictive value for broad emotion regulation constructs and outcomes. In addition, Study 1 showed that positive EMN mediated the relationship between psychological resilience and the experience of positive emotions in a context of sadness, even after controlling for pre-experimental positive mood. Study 2 replicated results of Study 1 in a context of anxiety and after controlling for positive affectivity trait.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 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

Citations139
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PersonalitySame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207