Beliefs about seeking and receiving help: a mixed-methods analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used a mixed-methods approach to identify beliefs about seeking and receiving help and their relation to behaviors and well-being. Thematic Analysis of qualitative data (Study 1, N = 81) identified five beliefs that were validated via factor analytic modeling (Study 2, N = 735): Help is Useful, the Help Process is Enjoyable, Help Diminishes Me, Help Threatens My Independence, and Helpers Can be Trusted. We call this belief taxonomy HELPS (Helpful, Enjoyable, Lessens, indePendence, and Safe). The relative importance of the HELPS beliefs in predicting help seeking, help receiving, and subjective well-being was examined via relative weights analysis using time-separated data (Study 3, N = 192). Safe and Enjoyable beliefs explained the most variance across different criteria. Additionally, beliefs demonstrated incremental validity in predicting receiving help, life satisfaction, and positive affect. The identified beliefs have significant implications for understanding mixed experiences of help and promoting positive help-receiving experiences.
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 | 0.047 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".