Clarifying the role of interpersonal factors in depression chronicity from a cognitive perspective.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Joiner's article (this issue) is a welcome contribution toward clarifying the role of interpersonal factors underlying depression chronicity. We believe, however, that three issues need to be considered regarding an interpersonal research agenda. First, Joiner's proposal would benefit from a discussion of the evidentiary requirements that risk factors must meet. Second, our reading of the literature suggests that interpersonal processes interact with cognitive processes that involve the activation of depressive knowledge structures and that these processes do meet criteria as a possible causal risk factor. Finally, Joiner's global concept of depression chronicity fails to recognize important differences in the mechanisms underlying each of the phenomena of episode prolongation, relapse induction, and recurrence as well as the changes that might occur in these processes with repeated episodes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it