The assessment and measurement of adult life stress: Basic premises, operational principles, and design requirements.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Life stress is a central factor in the onset and course of a wide range of medical and psychiatric conditions. Determining the precise etiological and pathological consequences of stress, though, has been hindered by weaknesses in prevailing definitional and measurement practices. The purpose of the current paper is to evaluate the primary strategies for defining and measuring major and minor acute life events, chronic stressors, and daily hassles as informed by 3 basic scientific premises. The first premise concerns the manner in which stress is conceptualized and operationally defined, and specifically we assert that stress measures must not conflate the stress exposure with the stress response. The second premise concerns how stress exposures are measured, and we provide guidelines for optimizing standardized and sensitive indicators of life stress. The third premise addresses the consequences of variations in the procedures for life event measurement with regard to the validity of the research designs employed. We show that life stress measures are susceptible to several sources of bias, and if these potential sources of bias are not controlled in the design of the research, spurious findings may result. Our goal is to provide a useful guide for researchers who consider life stress to be an important factor in their theoretical models of disease, wish to incorporate measures of life stress in their research, and seek to avoid the common pitfalls of past measurement practices. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 it