MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2366980803

Coping Humor of 354 Chinese University Students

2005· article· en· W2366980803 on OpenAlex
Guo Chen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueZhongguo xinli weisheng zazhi · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHumor Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaPsychologyCoping (psychology)Clinical psychologyMental healthPsychometricsPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives:Comparing Chinese with Canadians in using coping humor;exploring the relationship between coping humor and mental health.Methods:354 university students filled out the Coping Humor Scale (CHS)and the Self-rated Symptom Check-List-90 questionnaire.Results:The Cronbach alpha of the CHS was 0.65 and its test-retest reliability with 74 university students was 0.79.The Cronbach alpha of the CHS by deleting item 4 increased to 0.70.The reliability and validity of the CHS by deleting item 4 were moderately acceptable.It is found that Chinese university male students used more coping humor in comparison with their female counterparts.Chinese university students used less coping humor than their Canadian counterparts.The CHS correlated negatively with the subscales and general symptomatic index of SCL-90.Conclusions:The CHS by deleting item 4 can be applied in the Chinese context,but further revision is also recommended.There are cultural differences in using coping humor.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.313 · 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