MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996044206

Relating coping, fear of uncertainty and alexithymia with psychological distress: The mediator role of experiential avoidance

2009· article· en· W6996044206 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCINECA IRIS Institutial research information system (University of Pisa) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestational periodHyporeflexiaFusible alloyNucleofectionProteogenomicsDiafiltration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract\n\nThe present study tests the mediating role of experiential avoidance (EA;\n\nHayes, Wilson, Gifford, Follette, & Strosahl, 1996) to account for the\n\nrelations of avoidant coping, fear of uncertainty, and alexithymia with\n\nnegative psychological outcomes. Participants were 177 adults (51 males\n\nand 126 females; mean age = 34.5). Measures of EA (Acceptance and\n\nAction Questionnaire, AAQ), avoidant coping (Brief COPE scale), fear of\n\nuncertainty (Temperament and Character Inventory), alexithymia (Toronto\n\nAlexithymia Scale), and psychological outcomes (Behavior and Symptom\n\nIdentification Scale) were obtained from standardized, self-administered\n\nquestionnaires. Regression analyses were performed to test for mediation\n\nmodels. Results show that the effect of avoidant coping and fear of\n\nuncertainty on emotional distress and other negative outcomes decreases\n\nwhen controlling avoidance scores, whereas the latter predicts\n\npsychological outcomes. Findings suggest that EA may represent a\n\ngeneralized mechanism through which both avoidant coping and fear of\n\nuncertainty take on psychological significance. Results did not support,\n\nhowever, the mediating role of EA for explaining the relations between\n\nalexithymia and psychological outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCINECA IRIS Institutial research information system (University of Pisa)Same topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207