MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251591131 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/ygz37

Interest consistency can buffer the effect of COVID-19 fear on psychological distress

2020· preprint· en· W4251591131 on OpenAlexaff
Akihiro Masuyama, Takahiro Kubo, Daichi Sugawara, Yuta Chishima

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWilfrid Laurier University
FundersUniversity of Tsukuba
KeywordsContext (archaeology)GritPsychologyDistressAnxietyPsychological distressClinical psychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DASSMental healthScale (ratio)Consistency (knowledge bases)Social psychologyPsychiatryMedicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of a recent outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the present study investigated the buffering effect of grit on the relationship between fear of COVID-19 and psychological distress. The data were collected from 224 Japanese participants (98 females; mean age = 46.56, SD = 13.41) in July 2020. The measures used in this study included the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S), Short Grit Scale, and Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale 21 (DASS). The results of mediation analyses revealed significant indirect effects of consistency of interest, a major component of grit, on psychological distress; we also found non-significant indirect effects of perseverance of effort, another major component of grit, on psychological distress. These results suggest that consistency of interest buffers the psychological distress induced by fear of COVID-19. Based on these results, it can be concluded that individuals with higher consistency of interest are less likely to experience worsening of their mental health, even if they experience fear of COVID-19 during the pandemic.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGrit, Self-Efficacy, and MotivationFrench-language works237,207