Occupational Balance and Emotional Regulation in People With and Without Serious Mental Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Serious mental illness affects daily functioning, including occupational balance. Purpose. This study aims to compare occupational balance and emotional regulation between people with serious mental illness and the healthy population and to examine the relationship between occupational balance and emotional regulation. Method. A cross-sectional study was performed. Occupational balance and emotional regulation were measured using the Occupational Balance Questionnaire and the Emotional Regulation Questionnaire, respectively. A multivariate analysis (analysis of covariance) was conducted. Findings. The sample consisted of 112 individuals, divided into two groups: the serious mental illness group ( n = 55); and the healthy group ( n = 57). People with serious mental illness reported lower occupational balance and lower cognitive reappraisal than the healthy population. Furthermore, the higher cognitive reappraisal, the higher the occupational balance, and the higher the expressive suppression, the lower the occupational balance. Conclusion. The results provide preliminary evidence of the relationship between occupational balance and emotional regulation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".