Skill, Will, and Time: A Feasibility and Pilot Efficacy Study of Two Structured Interventions to Enhance Undergraduates’ Resilience Through Self-Regulation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study had two purposes: (1) to examine the feasibility and acceptability of two manualized intervention programs to enhance resilience through the mechanism of self-regulation in undergraduate students enrolled in Introductory Psychology, and (2) to examine preliminary efficacy of those interventions. Eligible participants were 445 undergraduates aged 18–25 years at a mid-size Canadian university during spring 2020, quasi-randomized to one of two 4-week self-regulation interventions taught via labs, focused on either “top-down” or “bottom-up” aspects of self-regulation, respectively. A total of N = 445 students provided data in the study, with 133 participants in interventions and 312 in the control group. Qualitative data indicated that the interventions were feasible and acceptable. Self-report measures of attention control, resilience, affect, and interoception, as well as exam scores, indicate dissociable effects for the two intervention conditions. As student mental health becomes an increasing concern, enhancing students’ well-being through primary prevention may prove to be a vital intervention focus.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it