Adolescents' meaning making of salient emotional experiences during the COVID‐19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This mixed-method longitudinal study examined American adolescents' meaning making of salient COVID-19 pandemic events. METHOD: = 15.76 years; 46% Latine) narrated their most emotionally impactful pandemic experience at two time points ~30 days apart between July 2020 and March 2021. Narratives were coded for (1) content (i.e., event-type, relation to the pandemic, and the valence of the event [positive or negative]), (2) linguistic markers of subjective event processing (internal state language such as positive emotion, negative emotion, and cognition words), (3) narrative meaning-making, and (4) the outcome of adolescents' meaning-making (i.e., their "meanings made"). RESULTS: About 30% of adolescents spontaneously made meaning of their experience. Negative emotion words within narratives at time 1 positively predicted meaning making at time 2. Meaning making at time 1 predicted increased use of cognition words at time 2. Meaning making themes included: recognizing the threat of COVID-19, coping with a pandemic, and shifts in perspectives. DISCUSSION: Salient emotional experiences that occur during adolescence are likely to be remembered and contribute to one's life story. This work provides a window into how the COVID-19 pandemic may have shaped adolescent development in the United States.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".