MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805917731 · doi:10.29173/spectrum13

The Brunner-Lei-Peters Resilience Scale

2018· article· en· W2805917731 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyScale (ratio)Coping (psychology)Clinical psychologyPsychological resilienceMental healthConstruct validityPopulationContext (archaeology)Reliability (semiconductor)Resilience (materials science)PsychometricsPsychiatrySocial psychologyMedicineCartographyEnvironmental healthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resilience is an important attribute for mental health. Positive benefits felt by resilient individualsinclude fewer depressive episodes, and better coping strategies. Due to the positive outcomesexperienced by resilient people, it may be clinically useful to examine this construct within apsychotherapeutic context. Accordingly, we created the Brunner-Lei-Peters Resilience Scale, whichincluded a preliminary test of 70 items and 10 validity items; we tested the scale on a sample of 150people. Participants were representative of the general population with about an equal representationof gender and a wide age range from 18 to 66 years of age. Although the scale initially included 70items, through psychometric analysis, we reduced the scale to 15 items, while maintaining soundpsychometric validity and reliability. Clinical implications and limitations of the scale are discussed.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.345 · 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