Examining differences in the stigma of depression and schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there is evidence of greater stigmatization of schizophrenia in comparison to depression, there has been little investigation of the reasons for this difference. AIMS: To examine the role of beliefs about depression and schizophrenia in mediating the difference in preferred social distance towards individuals with these two disorders. METHODS: In Study I, 200 undergraduates completed questionnaires concerning beliefs about depression or schizophrenia and willingness to interact with an individual who has one of the two disorders. In Study II, 103 members of a community service club completed similar measures. RESULTS: For both samples, beliefs about likely appropriateness of social behaviour showed evidence of mediating differences in preferred level of social distance. In addition, differences in perceived danger may have been a mediator for the undergraduate sample and perceived prognosis for the service club respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Beliefs about social appropriateness, danger and prognosis, which have implications for likely costs and benefits of interaction, are more likely to mediate differences in social distance towards the disorders than beliefs concerning causation or continuity with normal experience.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".