MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013830099 · doi:10.1080/15374410802575305

Contagious Depression: Negative Attachment Cognitions as a Moderator of the Temporal Association Between Parental Depression and Child Depression

2009· article· en· W2013830099 on OpenAlexaff
John R. Z. Abela, Suzanne Zinck, Shelley Kryger, Irene Zilber, Benjamin L. Hankin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyModerationDepression (economics)Association (psychology)Depressive symptomsCognitionMultilevel modelClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined whether negative attachment cognitions moderate the association between the onset of depressive symptoms in children and their parents using a high-risk sample (parents with a history of major depressive episodes and their children) and a multiwave longitudinal design. During the initial assessment, 140 children (ages 6-14) completed a measure assessing parent-child attachment cognitions. Parents and children also completed measures assessing current level of depressive symptoms. Following the initial assessment, children and parents were contacted every 6 weeks for the next year to complete measures assessing depressive symptoms. The results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses indicated that children who exhibited high levels of negative attachment cognitions reported greater elevations in depressive symptoms following elevations in their parent's level of depressive symptoms than children who exhibited low levels.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.412 · 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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Child & Adolescent PsychologySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207