Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research and theory on the topic of coping are undergoing a period of ferment, revision, and elaboration. A number of trenchant critiques of the coping literature have appeared in the past few years, ranging from papers that document the shortcomings of coping checklists to articles that decry the irrelevance of the largely descriptive work on coping to the design of interventions for specific populations (Coyne, 1997; Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996; Lazarus, 2000; Somerfield & McCrae, 2000; Stone, Greenberg, Kennedy-Moore, & Newman, 1991; Tennen, Affleck, Armeli, & Carney, 2000). Collectively, these critiques not only call attention to the many gaps in our knowledge of the nature and effects of coping, but also communicate the disconcerting news that we may not know nearly as much as we thought we knew because of significant methodological and conceptual weaknesses that beset past research. For example, in a simple but elegant way, Stone et al. (1991) have shown that the extent of use response categories which appear on the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) do not make sense for many of the coping items, and that many of the coping items themselves do not make sense when they are applied to a stressor that could not possibly elicit those ways of coping. On the latter score, how could someone endorse the item Tried to get the person responsible to change his or her mind when the stressor does not even remotely involve other people? Hence, if there are serious problems with the metric that has been used to quantify people's employment of different ways of coping, and if there are fundamental differences among stressors in the range of applicable coping options, then there is good reason to question the meaning and validity of much of the corpus of our knowledge.
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 | 0.069 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.080 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.005 |
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".