MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052661600 · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.489

Conceptualizing and Measuring Personality Vulnerability to Depression: Comment on Coyne and Whiffen (1995).

2004· review· en· W2052661600 on OpenAlexaff
David C. Zuroff, Myriam Mongrain, Darcy A. Santor

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Bulletin · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityYork UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyVulnerability (computing)NeuroticismContext (archaeology)PersonalitySelf-criticismSocial psychologyAutonomySocial environmentDevelopmental psychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

J. C. Coyne and V. E. Whiffen (1995) reviewed research on personality vulnerability to depression, focusing on S. J. Blatt's (1974, 1990) concepts of dependency and self-criticism and A. T. Beck's (1983) concepts of sociotropy and autonomy. The authors discuss 6 issues raised in that review: (a) the typological or dimensional nature of vulnerability, (b) the theoretical implications of "mixed" vulnerability, (c) the relations of vulnerability to Neuroticism. (d) the potential confounding of vulnerability with concurrent depression, (e) the potential confounding of vulnerability with social context, and (f) the differentiation of dependency from relatedness. The authors conclude that Blatt's and Beck's concepts are continuous, nearly orthogonal dimensions that can be identified and measured independently from Neuroticism, depression, and social context.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0120.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations272
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological BulletinSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207