Perfectionism, efficacy, and daily coping and affect in depression over 6 months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined how perfectionism and efficacy impacted the maintenance of daily coping and affect in depression over six months. METHOD: Forty-six depressed patients (69.6% female, mean age = 41.11 years) completed measures of perfectionism dimensions (self-critical, personal standards), efficacy, and depressive severity at Time 1. Participants then completed daily diaries of stress appraisals, coping, and affect for 7 consecutive days at Time 1 and Time 2, 6 months later. RESULTS: Perfectionism dimensions and efficacy were differentially correlated with appraisals, coping, and affect across Times 1 and 2. Behavioral disengagement tendencies mediated the relation between self-critical perfectionism and daily negative affect over 6 months, controlling for depressive severity. Efficacy was related to daily positive affect over 6 months through problem-focused coping tendencies. CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight the importance of addressing perfectionism, efficacy, and daily coping tendencies to more effectively reduce distress and bolster resilience in people with depression.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".