MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366241819 · doi:10.1177/00302228231169148

The Mediating Role of Tolerance for Psychological Pain in the Relationship Between Different Types of Childhood Traumatic Experiences and Suicidal Ideation

2023· article· en· W4366241819 on OpenAlexaff
Bruna Passos, Rui C. Campos, Cátia Reixa, Ronald R. Holden

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical psychologySuicidal ideationPsychologyPsychological interventionPsychological traumaMental healthSexual abusePsychological painPsychological abusePsychiatrySuicide preventionMedicinePoison controlMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present research was to evaluate the mediating effects of facets of the tolerance for psychological pain on the relationship between childhood trauma and suicidal ideation. A sample of 437 community individuals and a sample of 316 college students participated. For the community sample, managing the pain mediated the relationship between childhood trauma, the different types of traumatic experiences and suicidal ideation. In the college sample, managing the pain and enduring the pain mediated the relationship between childhood trauma, the different types of traumatic experiences and suicidal ideation, except for the case of sexual abuse. The present results have potential clinical implications. Mental health professionals should be aware of the long-term consequences of exposure to childhood trauma and need to assess the ability to tolerate psychological pain so as to implement appropriate psychological interventions that help individuals cope with their pain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOMEGA - Journal of Death and DyingSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207