Association between psychological flexibility and physical violence perpetration in college student populations: results from the national Healthy Minds Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the association between psychological flexibility and physical violence perpetration among a large sample of college students. Participants: We analyzed data from the 2018–2019 national Healthy Minds Study, which included 21,850 undergraduate and graduate student participants at 78 U.S. campuses. Methods: We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to estimate the association between psychological flexibility, measured by the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ), and a 12-month history of self-reported physical violence perpetration. Results: Mean scores on the AAQ were higher (p < 0.001) among participants who reported physical violence perpetration (25.6, SD 10.7) compared to those who did not (21.7, SD 9.9). Logistic regression results revealed that psychological inflexibility was associated with slightly higher odds of physical violence perpetration (AOR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02–1.04) while controlling for potential confounders. Conclusions: Campus violence prevention efforts should include programming aimed at increasing psychological flexibility as a means to reduce potential violence.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".