THE BENEFITS OF ENCOUNTERING STRESS: EXPLORING THE POSITIVE CORRELATES OF DAILY STRESS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has long focused on examining the negative influences of stressful experiences on health, with aging as a particularly important vulnerability factor. Although this research is critical for illuminating stress and health linkages in the context of aging, the positive aspects of stressful experiences have been left largely unexplored. This symposium brings together 4 papers that highlight the potential benefits of daily stress processes in midlife and late adulthood. First, Almeida et al. present data from two national studies on the prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of individuals who report living a “stress-free” daily life. These individuals are more likely to be older, men, and less educated. They also have fewer daily positive events, suggesting that daily stressors are characteristic of active lives with more social roles. Sin et al. extend these findings to examine whether positive events may be sought out to cope with stress. Indeed, positive events frequently co-occurred on the same days as stressors and predicted more favorable stress appraisals. Joo et al. show how the experience of daily stressors predicts increases in same-day and next-day engagement in social support. Finally, Jones et al. demonstrate that the links between intra-individual variability in positive and negative emotions with inflammatory markers are largely meditated by daily stress. Collectively, these presentations suggest that daily stress can serve protective cognitive-emotional, social, and biological purposes. Anthony Ong’s discussion will center on next steps for examining positive aspects of stress across life domains and in the context of optimal aging.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".