MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1834599494 · doi:10.1177/0146167215590985

The Development of Self-Criticism and Dependency in Early Adolescence and Their Role in the Development of Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms

2015· article· en· W1834599494 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel C. Kopala‐Sibley, David C. Zuroff, Benjamin L. Hankin, John R. Z. Abela

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySelf-criticismAnxietyPersonalityDepressive symptomsDevelopmental psychologyDependency (UML)Personality developmentClinical psychologySelf-conceptBeck Depression InventorySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to Blatt and others (e.g., A. T. Beck), self-definition, or one's sense of self, and one's sense of relatedness to others represent core lifespan developmental tasks. This study examined the role of events pertaining to self-definition or relatedness in the development of personality traits from each domain (self-criticism and dependency), and their relationship to the development of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Two hundred seventy-six early adolescents completed a measure of self-criticism and dependency at baseline and again 24 months later, along with measures of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Every 3 months, participants completed a measure of life events, which were coded as self-definitional or relatedness oriented (80% rater agreement, kappa = .70). Structural equation models showed that self-definitional events predicted increases in self-criticism, which in turn predicted increases in depressive symptoms, whereas relatedness events predicted increases in dependency, although dependency was unrelated to change in symptoms.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 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

Citations59
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality and Social Psychology BulletinSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207