On the hierarchical structure of mood and anxiety disorders: Confirmatory evidence and elaboration of a model of temperament markers.
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
The authors examined D. Watson's (2005) proposed reconceptualization of the diagnostic categories for mood and anxiety disorders for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders--Fifth Edition (DSM-V) and tested an elaboration of the 2-factor (positive and negative activation) model of underlying temperament markers that incorporates A. Tellegen, D. Watson, & L. A. Clark's (1999a, 1999b) higher-order dimension of happiness-unhappiness (or demoralization; see A. Tellegen et al., 2003). In Study 1, 502 undergraduate students completed several symptom measures of mood and anxiety disorders and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (J. N. Butcher et al., 2001). Using confirmatory factor analysis, the authors replicated Watson's distress and fear disorder model. Path analyses showed that demoralization was a primary marker of distress disorders, whereas dysfunctional negative emotions was a primary marker of fear disorders. Low positive emotions was a specific marker of depression and social phobia. This 3-factor path model was associated with better fit than was a 2-factor model excluding demoralization. In Study 2, the authors replicated the findings of Study 1 using data from an archival clinical sample of 636 Veterans Affairs hospital outpatients. The authors' findings provide evidence on the important role of demoralization in mood and anxiety disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it