Co-rumination cultivates anxiety: A genetically informed study of friend influence during early adolescence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested 2 related hypotheses. The first holds that high co-rumination anticipates heightened internalizing problems. The second holds that positive relationships with friends exacerbate the risk for internalizing problems arising from co-rumination. A sample of MZ twins followed from birth (194 girls and 170 boys) completed (a) self-reports of friendship support, friendship negativity, and co-rumination with friends at age 12 and (b) measures of anxiety and depression at ages 12 and 13. Using a monozygotic twins-difference design, within-pair differences in co-rumination predicted increased within-pair differences in anxiety (but not depression), after removing the covariance between co-rumination and perceptions of friendship. In other words, the difference in co-rumination within each monozygotic twin pair predicted an increase in the difference in their anxiety levels, but not the difference in their depression levels. The discussion focuses on nonshared environmental influences, because the monozygotic twin-difference design eliminates the possibility that associations were driven by heritability or by shared environmental factors that underlie friendship experiences and internalizing problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".