MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210472873 · doi:10.1080/15298868.2022.2036635

Under pressure: Locomotion and assessment in the COVID-19 pandemic

2022· article· en· W4210472873 on OpenAlexaff
Erik J. Jansen, James Danckert, Paul Seli, Abigail A. Scholer

Bibliographic record

VenueSelf and Identity · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicPsychologyFeelingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DistressAffect (linguistics)Public healthPsychological distressSocial psychology2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Mental healthDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryVirologyNursingCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic poses unique opportunities to explore how fundamental self-regulatory variables affect responses to the pandemic. We examine how two critical self-regulatory orientations, locomotion and assessment, relate to psychological distress and obeying public health guidelines using secondary data analysis. In the initial pandemic stages (April and May, 2020), North American participants (N = 924) completed measures of chronic locomotion and assessment, pandemic behaviors and feelings, and various individual-differences. Analyses revealed that assessment, but not locomotion, was indirectly associated with greater pandemic rule-breaking and psychological distress through the fear of missing out, difficulty engaging in activities, and engagement in negative activities. We discuss why the vulnerabilities of assessment, and not locomotion, may be particularly sensitive to pandemic-related constraints.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSelf and IdentitySame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207