MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976928647 · doi:10.1097/nmd.0b013e318166350f

Crying as a Gendered Indicator of Depression

2008· article· en· W1976928647 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryingIrritabilityDepression (economics)PsychologyAggressionPopulationDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crying is a gendered activity; women in the general population are known to cry more than men. However, crying is also used as a sign of depression. Its use may explain some of the discrepancy in rates of depression in men and women. We suggest that crying is an invalid indicator because of its gendered status and should be removed from the diagnostic criteria for depression. Men may show other symptoms when depressed more than women, such as aggression and irritability. The inclusion of crying items in depression instruments may therefore introduce a gender bias in the assessment of depression.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.331 · 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