When talking goes awry: association between co-rumination and trait anxiety, test anxiety, and anxiety sensitivity in early and late adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Friends are major sources of social support for adolescents. This support may sometimes lead to co-rumination when the problem is discussed exhaustively with a focus on negative feelings. Co-rumination has been associated with some forms of anxiety, including clinical symptoms. Further studies are needed to investigate whether this association extends to additional and non-clinical forms of anxiety in youth. This study aimed to explore the relationship between co-rumination and trait anxiety, test anxiety, and anxiety sensitivity using secondary data. DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 2019 cross-sectional study, 1204 (59% girls) Canadian 6th-grade early adolescents (ages 11-12) and 11th-grade late adolescents (ages 16-17) completed self-report questionnaires measuring co-rumination, trait anxiety, test anxiety, and anxiety sensitivity. RESULTS: Co-rumination was associated with anxiety sensitivity in early adolescents and with trait anxiety, test anxiety, and anxiety sensitivity in late adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Developmental factors may play a role in the association between co-rumination and different forms of anxiety. Anxiety sensitivity may appear alongside co-rumination in early adolescence and may broaden to trait and test anxiety in late adolescence. These results extend our understanding of the relationship between co-rumination and anxiety, as well as generate hypotheses for future longitudinal studies.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".