MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996676491 · doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.753660

Depression Is to Diabetes as Antidepressants Are to Insulin: The Unraveling of an Analogy?

2013· article· en· W1996676491 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Communication · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAnalogyDepression (economics)Diabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesPsychologyPsychiatryMedicineEpistemologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The common comparison of depression to diabetes enables the construction of depression as a nonstigmatizing chronic illness that requires medication. We explore, through the use of discourse analysis, how both long-term users of antidepressants and family physicians invoked this analogy in research interviews. Specifically, we show how these participants explicitly or implicitly challenged the aptness of the depression-diabetes analogy as framed either within a generic (and presumably type 1) conception of diabetes or within the model of type 2 diabetes. These challenges include demonstrating how the elements or inferences of the analogy do not correspond, and how the analogy does not have its intended effects. We consider the implications of the unraveling of this analogy for the construction of depression as a chronic medical condition, for the supposed ease of prescribing and taking antidepressants, and for the reduction of stigma.

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)0.001
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 score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.317 · 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