MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W201348123 · doi:10.1177/070674371105601203

Evolutionary Theories of Depression: A Critical Review

2011· review· en· W201348123 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Edward H. Hagen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSadnessMajor depressive disorderAnhedoniaDysfunctional familyPsychologyDepression (economics)MoodClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapistAngerSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We critically review evolutionary theories of major depressive disorder (MDD). Because most instances of MDD appear to be caused by adversity, evolutionary theories of MDD generally propose that sadness and low mood evolved as beneficial responses to adversity, and that MDD is dysfunctional sadness and low mood. If so, MDD research should focus much more heavily on understanding the healthy functions of sadness and low mood to better understand how they dysfunction. A debate about the boundary between healthy sadness and MDD is then reviewed. In part, this debate turns on whether MDD's costliest symptoms could provide unknown benefits. Therefore, the review concludes by discussing 2 theories that explore possible benefits of prolonged anhedonia and suicidality.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations106
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207