Social support buffers young men's resilient coping to psychological distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Social support and resilient coping can aid mental health. The aim of this study was to examine age effects of social support on men's resilient coping for psychological distress. METHODS: The sample consisted of 434 help-seeking Canadian men who completed standardized measures. Regression analyses tested a moderated moderation model, controlling for COVID-19 pandemic impact. RESULTS: Greater resilient coping was associated with lower psychological distress and this relationship was moderated by social support. Higher levels of social support had a significant positive effect on men's resilient coping for psychological distress. Findings indicated that younger men (18-24 years) were most positively buffered by social support. CONCLUSIONS: Social support appears to be particularly important for young men's coping response to psychological distress. This is an important finding in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where social support networks have been challenged. Community-based and clinical programs and initiatives that proactively target young men's development of social connections and robust supportive networks, while bolstering their individual resilient coping skills, are likely to provide protections from psychological distress.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".