MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058595742 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076554

Gender Differences in the Social Pathways Linking Neighborhood Disadvantage to Depressive Symptoms in Adults

2013· article· en· W2058595742 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Emma Bassett, Spencer Moore

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeighbourhood (mathematics)DisadvantageDemographyMediationDisengagement theoryCensusPsychologyCross-sectional studyGerontologyPopulationMedicineSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depression debilitates the lives of millions and is projected to be the second leading disease burden worldwide by 2020. At the population level, the causes of depression are found in the everyday social and physical environments in which people live. Research has shown that men and women often experience neighbourhood environments differently and that these variations are often reflected in health outcomes. The current study examines whether social and environmental correlates of depression are similar in men and women. This study examines whether (i) there are gender differences in the association between neighbourhood disadvantage and depressive symptoms, and (ii) dimensions of social capital and cohesion mediate these associations. Data come from the Montreal Neighbourhood Networks and Healthy Aging Study, which consists of a cluster stratified sample of Montreal census tracts (n(ct) = 300) and individuals within those tracts (ni = 2707). Depressive symptoms and social capital were measured with a questionnaire. Neighbourhood disadvantage was measured at the census tract level using data from the 2006 Canada Census. Multilevel logistic regression stratified by gender and a three-step mediation analysis procedure were used. Final sample size for these analyses was 2574 adults. Depressive symptoms had a prevalence of 17.3% in the overall sample. Disadvantage was associated with depressive symptoms in women only (OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.01-1.55). Perceived neighbourhood cohesion was shown to mediate the association of disadvantage and depressive symptoms in women (ab = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.003-0.04, p<0.05). Other socio-relational variables, specifically generalized trust and trust in neighbours were associated with depression in women but did not act as mediating variables. Health promotion initiatives meant to combat depression may wish to consider gender differences in the design and implementation of neighbourhood or peer-based programs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations61
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207