Moderators of the Association Between Co-Rumination and Depressive Symptoms in Emerging Adult Friendships
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
Co-rumination, or perseverating about problems aloud with another individual, is an emotion regulation strategy enacted within relationships. Despite its association with depressive symptoms, co-rumination may benefit friendships. For example, the independent emotion regulation tendencies of each individual in the dyad may interact with co-rumination to exacerbate or protect against its negative effects on depressive experiences. This interaction might be particularly important during the transition from late adolescence to young adulthood when friendships are in flux and emotion regulation capacity is increasing. Therefore, the current study assessed whether emerging adult friends’ tendencies to enact rumination and reappraisal moderated the association between co-rumination and depressive symptoms. Path analyses revealed that the extent to which a co-ruminating individuals experienced depressive symptoms depended on the extent to which their friend reappraised: a positive, linear association between co-rumination and depressive symptoms emerged only for target participants whose friend was low in reappraisal use.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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