An Exploration of Gifted and Highly Able Adolescents ' Experiences with Stress and Coping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This narrative case study explored gifted and highly able adolescents ' experiences with stress and coping. Nine students, ages 13-18, at 2 independent schools in southern Ontario, participated. They completed the Adolescent Coping Scale (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993), and I generated individualized graphs of coping strategies. Participants talked about experiences they perceived as stressful in their academic, personal, social, and familial settings during a 60-90 minute one-on-one audiotaped interview. During the interview, each participant made observations about their own coping strategies profile. The interview was analyzed to identify stressor and coping themes. Participants completed a writing or art task to record perceptions of stress and coping. The 3 data sources were used to craft 9 individual story portraits, from which 5 main stressor themes emerged: issues of time; relationships, emotions, and communication; ethical, moral, and spiritual issues; global issues; and silences, or stressors not talked about in depth. Coping themes were: seeking relaxing activities; having positive attitudes and making wise choices; maintaining relationships with peers and family; understanding the role of faith
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".