Revisiting the SECPT-G: A template for the group-administered socially evaluated cold-pressor test to robustly induce stress
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
The Socially Evaluated Cold-Pressor Test (SECPT (Schwabe et al., 2008) [1]; reliably elicits stress responses. We refined the group-administered version of the SECPT (SECPT-G) aiming to increase its' effectiveness. In Experiment 1 (N = 39), we gathered data from 12 participants simultaneously, employing a stress confederate for each participant. In Experiment 2 (N = 69), we gathered data from six participants simultaneously, employing either six stress confederates (individual-observation) or a single one (group-observation). In Experiment 1, we found that the SECPT-G elicited cortisol responses compared to a control condition; in Experiment 2, we replicated these findings and observed that cortisol responses were similar in the individual- and the group-observation setting. The findings of Experiment 2 were corroborated by people's subjective stress experience. Importantly, both experiments show a similar magnitude of cortisol response, and a greater responder rate than in the regular SECPT or the regular Trier Social Stress Test (TSST). The presented SECPT-G template may thus serve as a reliable and efficient stress induction tool that allows standardization across research groups.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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