MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084714196 · doi:10.1348/014466508x299682

Healthy and unhealthy dependence: Implications for major depression

2008· article· en· W2084714196 on OpenAlexafffund
Fiona Schulte, Myriam Mongrain, David B. Flora

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaYork University
KeywordsConceptualizationPsychologyDepression (economics)Dependency (UML)Structural equation modelingClinical psychologyHistory of depressionDepressive symptomsMajor depressive disorderPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To examine the contribution of varying levels of dependency to Axis I and Axis II disorders, and to the recurrence of major depression in a graduate student sample diagnosed with a history of the disorder. METHODS: At Time 1, participants were interviewed to confirm a current or past episode of major depression along with the presence of Axis II and other current or past Axis I disorders. Various measures of dependency were administered including the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ; Blatt, D'Afflitti, & Quinlan, 1976), the 3-Vector Dependency Inventory (3VDI; Pincus & Gurtman, 1995), and the Personal Style Inventory (PSI; Robins et al., 1994). Participants were interviewed 20 months later to determine the recurrence of a depressive episode. RESULTS: A factor analysis conducted on scale scores for each dependency measure resulted in three factors labelled 'unhealthy', 'intermediate', and 'healthy' dependence. Controlling for history of major depression, structural equation modelling found 'unhealthy' dependence to be the only predictor of recurrences of major depression and Axis II disorders, while 'healthy' dependence was related to fewer depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: These results have important implications for the conceptualization of the dependency construct.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PsychologySame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207