MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149809073 · doi:10.1177/0022022104270109

Culture, Stress, and Coping

2004· article· en· W2149809073 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roger G. Tweed, Katherine White, Darrin R. Lehman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of CalgaryKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStressorEast AsiaCoping (psychology)GerontologyPsychologyDemographyGender studiesMedicineClinical psychologyGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two studies examined internally and externally targeted control strategies in response to life stressors in European Canadians, East Asian Canadians, and Japanese. In Study 1, European Canadian, East Asian Canadian, and sojourning Japanese university students in Canada recalled a stressful life event and reported their coping strategies. Respondents also reported current and retrospective self-evaluations that allowed assessment of perceived self-changes over time. Study 2 included East Asian Canadian and European Canadian university students in Canada and Japanese university students in Japan. Both studies revealed that several types of internally targeted control strategies were more prevalent among East Asian participants but that a particular type of internally targeted control strategy, self-enhancing interpretive control, was more prevalent among people with Western English-speaking backgrounds.

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)0.002
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 score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.380 · 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

Citations142
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cross-Cultural PsychologySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207