Hope as a Process in Understanding Positive Mood and Suicide Protection
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
Abstract. Background: According to the broaden-and-build model of positive mood, positive emotions are believed to broaden cognition resources and build psychological resiliency, to help incur positive psychological outcomes. Aim: We examined hope as a potential mediator of the association between positive mood and suicide protection (viz., life satisfaction and reasons for living) in adults. We hypothesized that positive mood would be associated with greater suicide protection through broadening hope agency and building hope pathways. Method: A sample of 320 college students completed measures of positive emotions, hope, and suicide protection. Results: Results from bootstrapped mediation testing indicated that hope agency, but not hope pathways, partially or fully mediated the relationship between positive mood and suicide protection. Limitations: It is not clear whether these findings are generalizable to a more diverse adult population. Also, it is not possible to rule out alternative causal models involving positive emotions and suicide protection. Conclusion: These findings provide some promising preliminary evidence for how positive emotions might help build hope agency to foster greater suicide protection in adults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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