Structured journal writing for recovery from romantic relationship loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of a structured journal writing intervention on 20 university students ( 18 females and 2 males, ages 20 to 30 years) who had experienced a breakup within the preceding 12 months. Writing occurred for six sessions over a period of 3 weeks. Experimental group participants (n = l 0) responded to questions aimed at eliciting an account of the breakup, with emphasis on emotional expression and cognitive re-appraisal of the loss. Control group participants (n = I 0) wrote about neutral topics. Pre- and post-test measures of self-esteem, self-concept, time orientation, inner-directedness, and capacity for intimacy were taken using the Self Description Questionnaire III and the Personal Orientation Inventory. Contrary to the hypotheses, no significant differences were found between groups at post-test. Post-hoc analyses revealed significant improvements in the experimental group in self-esteem, inner-directedness, Emotional Stability self concept, and Opposite Sex Peer Relations self-concept, while the control group improved in Opposite Sex Peer Relations self-concept only. Possible explanations for the findings are discussed and implications for future research are presented.
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 | 0.006 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.123 | 0.033 |
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".