MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963268176 · doi:10.1002/pits.22276

Self‐stigma and domains of well‐being in high school youth: Associations with self‐efficacy, self‐esteem, and self‐criticism

2019· article· en· W2963268176 on OpenAlexaff
Alison Rose, Sarah K. Atkey, Gordon L. Flett, Joel O. Goldberg

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology in the Schools · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySelf-esteemSelf-conceptAutonomySelf-criticismStigma (botany)Psychological interventionDevelopmental psychologySelf-acceptanceSocial psychologySelfWell-beingCriticismClinical psychologyPsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Self‐stigma is a phenomenon in which negative public stereotypes about mental illness are internalized and can undermine help‐seeking. Unfortunately, little is known about how self‐stigmatization relates to positive well‐being indicators among youth. A sample of 134 high school students completed established measures of self‐stigma, well‐being, self‐esteem, self‐efficacy, and self‐criticism. Analyses confirmed that self‐stigma was associated with overall well‐being and five well‐being subscales (autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations, and self‐acceptance); the strongest associations were with autonomy and positive relations with others. The majority of these associations still held when simultaneously controlling for self‐esteem, self‐efficacy, and self‐criticism. Taken together, findings point to the need for greater awareness of self‐stigma along with an explicit focus on the promotion of protective well‐being in prevention work and interventions designed to alleviate the tendency for young people to internalize stigma. Additionally, findings have theoretical implications for the “why try” model of self‐stigma.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology in the SchoolsSame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207