MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097554200

JOURNAL oF RESEARCH rN pERsONALrry 30,204_222 (1996) ARTICLE NO. OOI4 Anticipatory stress: The Relation of Locus of control, optimism, and Control Appraisals to Coping AND

2016· article· en· W7097554200 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOptimism, Hope, and Well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocus of controlOptimismCoping (psychology)PersonalityBig Five personality traits
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examined the locus of control beliefs and optimism as predictors of control appraisals and coping associated with three diiferent anticipatory stressful situations (enr-ployment decisions, teacher bias, and natural disaster). The I 1 8 undergraduate participants completed measures of locus of control (Rotter I-E), optimism (Life orientation Test) and confol appraisals (Stress Appraisal Measure) 2 weeks prior to completing the Inventory of coping Schemas to report their coping strategies used in dealing with each stressor. Regression analyses indicated that optimism and locus of control were relatively inde-pendent predictors of control appraisals and that control appraisals were generalty better predictors of coping than either locus of control or optimism. As expected, somewhat different pattems of significant predictors were obtained for the three stressors. Results are discussed in terms of the congruence model of effective coping, which predicts relations among control appraisals and coping for various types of stressful situations. c) 1ee6 Academic Press. Inc. Evidence has accumulated indicating that various personality characteristics, such as locus of control and optimism, are related to how people cope with stress(e.g. Lefcourt, 1980; Scheier & carver, l9g7). For example, an o timistic ori-entation has been associated with increased problem-solving efforts (Scheier & carver, 1987; Scheier, weintraub, & Carver, l9g6), especially in controllable This article is based on a portion of a dissertation submitted by Edward J. peacock to the Graduate Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, in patial fulfillment of the requirements of the Doctor of Philosophy degree. The dissertation was supervised by the second author. The authors thank the editor and the anonymouus reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.008

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.333 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimism, Hope, and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207