Insisting on Depression, but not Showing Symptoms: A Japanese Study of Excuse-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the late 1990s, Japanese psychiatrists have reported the appearance of a Modern Type Depression (MTD), which has different features from melancholic depression. Using a case vignette method, we looked at one of the distinctive features of MTD; that is, “insisting on depression”. In particular, we examined whether the statement “I think I may have depressive disorder” can be accepted as an excuse for not fulfilling ones’ duty when one does not show any symptoms of depressive disorder. Participants comprised 344 Japanese undergraduates who were presented with a short scenario describing social predicaments and who subsequently assessed the excuse value in terms of impression and behavioral reaction on the transgressor. Results showed that even though the transgressor did not show any symptoms of depressive disorder, insisting that one may have depressive disorder seemed to be accepted. Additionally, consistent with Weiner’s cognitive (attribution)–emotion–action model, the more positive impressions observers have on the transgressor, the more they are motivated to react kindly to the transgressor. Some unexpected findings and limitations of the present study were discussed.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".