Cultivating Incremental Theories Regarding Anxiety to Reduce Student Academic and General Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An incremental view of a personal attribute (i.e., a growth mindset) often confers significant affective and psychological advantages relative to an entity view (i.e., a fixed mindset). For example, a fixed mindset regarding anxiety has recently been shown to be associated with higher anxiety and poorer emotional coping skills (De Castella et al., 2014). No research to date has examined the causal impact of incremental vs. entity views toward anxiety on levels of anxiety. In the current proposed study, undergraduate participants will be randomly assigned to receive either an intervention that trains an incremental view of anxiety or to receive a control intervention. Three weeks later, academic and general anxiety will be measured in both groups along with their incremental vs. fixed views toward anxiety. It is predicted that that those who undergo cultivation of an incremental view toward anxiety will exhibit less anxiety than control group participants. Supportive findings would suggest that preventative interventions may be effective for protecting students from anxiety throughout the school year and from more general health risks connected to long-lasting anxiety. Discipline: Psychology Honours Faculty Mentor: Dr. Andrew Howell
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".