Triangulation of self-report and investigator-rated coping indices as predictors of psychological stress: A longitudinal investigation among public utility workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of the present study were to: (a) determine if self-reported coping is consistent with conceptually-equivalent investigator-rated coping indices; (b) establish which types of coping are associated with psychological stress; and (c) establish whether using investigator-rated in addition to self-report coping indices to predict stress outcomes is beneficial in a real life context of worker's stressors. To fulfil these aims, a longitudinal investigation was conducted among 40 Canadian workers from the public utility sector. Results from semi-structured interviews about their worst current stressors revealed main effects for some coping types as assessed with investigator-rated indices, whereas no main effects were observed with self-report coping indices. Still, self-report and investigator-rated coping indices together significantly predicted follow-up stress. Psychological stress was most strongly predicted by investigator-rated behavioural approach. While self-report cognitive approach predicted lower psychological stress, investigator-rated cognitive approach predicted greater stress. Findings underline the importance of using both types of coping indices to predict outcome.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".