MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Major Depressive Disorder and Marital Transition among Mothers:

2000· article· en· W1967232705 on OpenAlexaffabout
Terrance J. Wade, John Cairney

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)Longitudinal studyDemographyPsychologyPopulationMarital statusDepressive symptomsMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This analysis employs a national panel study to examine the relationship between marital transition and depression among mothers within the framework of selection and causation processes. The data come from the two-wave, longitudinal National Population Health Survey (NPHS) by Statistics Canada collected in 1994 and again in 1996 focusing on women between 20 and 65 years of age with children living at home (N = 2169). Compared with mothers who remain married, mothers making the transition into single-parenthood had a significantly higher rate of major depression at Time 1, which increased, but not significantly, at Time 2. This suggests that a selection effect may explain the elevated levels of depression among mothers experiencing a marital disruption. Rates of depression among single-parent mothers making the transition into a marital relationship did not decrease significantly between waves nor did the rate differ significantly from stable single-parent mothers at Time 1 or Time 2, suggesting that movement into marriage is not a protective factor.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations62
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207