Exploring self-conscious emotions in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the extent to which self-conscious emotions are expressed, to explore any associations with adverse health outcomes, and to compare self-conscious emotions in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to healthy controls. A two-stage mixed-methods study design was employed. Interviews with 15 individuals with COPD informed the choice of questionnaires to assess self-conscious emotions which were completed by individuals with COPD and healthy controls. Five overarching themes were abstracted: grief, spectrum of blame, concern about the view of others, concealment, and worry about the future. The questionnaires were completed by 70 patients (mean( SD) age 70.8(9.4) years, forced expiratory volume in one second predicted 40.5(18.8), 44% male) and 61 healthy controls (mean( SD) age 62.2(12.9) years, 34% male]. Self-conscious emotions were associated with reduced mastery, heightened emotions, and elevated anxiety and depression (all p < 0.001). Individuals with COPD reported lower self-compassion, higher shame, and less pride than healthy controls (all p ≤ 0.01). There is a need to increase awareness of self-conscious emotions in individuals with COPD. Therapies to target such emotions may improve mastery, emotions, and psychological symptoms.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".