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
Although co-rumination is associated with positive relationship perceptions, individuals that engage in this behaviour often report fewer friends and peer difficulties. Those with a tendency to co-ruminate also report elevated levels of internalizing symptoms. Thus, the tendency to co-ruminate may put individuals at risk of depressive and anxious symptoms as well as social problems as they make the challenging transition to university and build new social networks. I analyzed social network data from 458 first year undergraduate students during their first university semester. Co-rumination within a particular relationship was associated with greater tie strength and socio-emotional multiplexity. Co-rumination was positively associated with depressive and anxious symptoms. Contrary to predictions, individuals with a tendency to co-ruminate did not differ from their peers in terms of network size and density. Results suggest that the negative impacts of co-rumination on social well-being may develop over time, rather than being apparent in the early stages of network building.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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