MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413864175 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/5gh7n_v1

Investigating Intrusive and Deliberate Rumination as Mediators in the Effects of Perceived Stress on Depression and Anxiety Severity

2025· article· en· W4413864175 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Scott Squires, Adam Levitan, Roumen Milev, Jordan Poppenk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsRuminationAnxietyPsychologyDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyStress (linguistics)PsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rumination, a form of self-relevant repetitive thought, can manifest after stressful experiences and exacerbate symptoms of psychopathology. Intrusive rumination (IR) but not deliberate rumination (DR) has been previously shown to mediate the links between COVID-19 pandemic stress and symptoms of anxiety and depression; this study investigates whether these results generalize to stressful life experiences more broadly. 1057 participants from an online convenience sample completed questionnaires assessing perceived stress, event-related rumination, depression, and anxiety. A parallel mediation model tested whether the associations of perceived stress with anxiety and depression symptoms were mediated by IR and DR. All effects in the model were statistically significant, except the prediction of anxiety by DR. Additionally, we found that IR partially positively mediated the stress-depression and stress-anxiety associations, whereas DR partially negatively mediated the stress-depression association. Therefore, psychological treatments that promote a shift from IR to DR after a stressful experience are recommended.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMental Health Research Topics→French-language works237,207→