MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147687716 · doi:10.1002/jclp.21939

Trait Mindfulness, Repression, Suppression, and Self‐Reported Mood and Stress Symptoms Among Women With Breast Cancer

2012· article· en· W2147687716 on OpenAlexaff
Rie Tamagawa, Janine Giese‐Davis, Michael Speca, Richard Doll, Joanne Stephen, Linda E. Carlson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindfulnessPsychologyMoodBreast cancerClinical psychologyTraitPsychological interventionBig Five personality traitsPersonalityPsychotherapistCancerPsychiatryMedicineInternal medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to identify relationships between trait mindfulness, repressive, and suppressive emotional styles, and the relative importance of these traits in their association with self-reported psychological health among women with breast cancer. METHOD: Of the 277 women with breast cancer accrued in the study, 227 (81.9%) completed a set of questionnaires assessing personality traits, stress symptoms, and mood. RESULTS: High levels of mindfulness were associated with fewer stress-related symptoms and less mood disturbance, while high levels of suppression were associated with poorer self-reported health. CONCLUSION: Individuals' dispositional ways to manage negative emotions were associated with the experience of symptoms and aversive moods. Helping patients cultivate mindful insights and reduce deliberate emotional inhibition may be a useful focus for psycho-oncological interventions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations85
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207