MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069433925 · doi:10.1037//0021-843x.109.4.803

Psychiatric disorders and dissatisfaction with social relationships: Does type of relationship matter?

2000· article· en· W2069433925 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark A. Whisman, C. Tess Sheldon, Paula Goering

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Abnormal Psychology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsSpousePsychologyPsychiatryAssociation (psychology)AnxietyDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyPanicMental healthPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The specificity of the association between 9 Axis I psychiatric disorders and quality of the relationship with spouse, relatives, and friends was evaluated for married participants who completed the Ontario Health Survey Mental Health Supplement (N = 4,933). When the authors controlled for the quality of other social relationships, not getting along with one's spouse was related to 6 disorders, with the strongest associations found for generalized anxiety disorder, major depression, panic, and alcohol problems; 4 associations remained significant when they controlled for comorbid disorders. Not getting along with relatives and friends was generally unrelated to psychiatric disorders when they controlled for the other social relationships. Results indicate that the association between marital quality and psychiatric disorders is not an artifact of general social dissatisfaction and that this association is significant for several 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.

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)0.010
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations215
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Abnormal PsychologySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207