Validation de la version française d’un questionnaire évaluant les pensées répétitives constructives et non constructives.
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
This article presents the adaptation and the validation of a short self-report questionnaire assessing repetitive thinking, the Mini Cambridge-Exeter Repetitive Thought Scale (Mini-CERTS). This 16 item scale evaluates two dimensions of repetitive thinking: "concrete, experiential thinking" (CET) and "abstract, analytical thinking" (AAT) that may have constructive and unconstructive consequences. A large sample of adult volunteers (n = 247) filled in the Mini-CERTS. Subsamples also responded to depression, anxiety and general symptomatology questionnaires as well as to a concurrent measure, the Ruminative Response Scale. Confirmatory factor analysis ascertained the two-dimension structure of the questionnaire. Correlational analyses evidenced differentiated patterns of relation between CET and AAT and anxiety, depression and general symptomatology scales. AAT was correlated to the brooding scale of the RRS but there was no relation between CET and both scales of the RRS. Preliminary data suggest that the Mini-CERTS is sensitive to clinical status and treatment. © 2012 Canadian Psychological Association.
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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