Is level of pain acceptance differentially related to arthritis-specific social cognitions and physical activity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual differences in pain-related factors may help clarify why some women with arthritis are more active. Pain acceptance, which involves being willing to pursue activities despite pain, may be associated with social cognitive correlates of activity. Our first purpose was to examine whether self-regulatory efficacy to cope with arthritis barriers and the likelihood and value of arthritis outcomes distinguished women of higher versus lower pain acceptance, after controlling for pain intensity. The second purpose was to examine whether the two acceptance groups differed in activity. Participants (Mage=47.69 years) completed online measures of pain acceptance and intensity, social cognitions, and then endurance activity two-weeks later. Two acceptance groups were formed (n=59/group; median split). A hierarchical discriminant function analysis revealed that after controlling for pain intensity, social cognitions accounted for 13% of the variance in pain acceptance (final model ? = .73, ?2 (4) = 36.01, p < .01). Self-regulatory efficacy and pain intensity contributed the most to group separation. A t-test revealed the higher acceptance group engaged in significantly more activity (Mhigher=208.39 vs. Mlower =142.73 minutes/week, p
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".