DAILY ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN STRESSOR CONTROL AND AFFECT VARY AS A FUNCTION OF STRESSOR TYPE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Perceived control is an important psychosocial correlate of emotional well-being. Using data from the National Study of Daily Experiences (N=1,797, M=55.82 years, SD=10.35, 57.27% Female), we examined how self-reported control over different types of stressors (arguments, avoided arguments, work, home, network) was associated with negative affect (NA) and positive affect (PA). Over 8 consecutive days in waves conducted in ~2008 and ~2017, people reported their daily NA, PA, and control over stressors they had experienced. Within-person associations revealed lower NA on days when stressor control was higher than usual (p<.001), driven by control over arguments, avoided arguments, and work stressors specifically. PA was higher on days when individuals perceived greater control over avoided and actual arguments (ps<.001), but lower on days when individuals perceived greater control over network stressors (p<.01). Results suggest the facilitative role of control over daily stress for emotional well-being depends on the type of stressor experienced.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".