Depression in China: Integrating Developmental Psychopathology and Cultural-Clinical Psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a starting point in John Abela's groundbreaking developmental psychopathology research on adolescent depression in China, we aimed to review the state of the literature on Chinese depression across the lifespan. We began with Dr. Abela's published studies relevant to depression in China and our own research with adults before turning to the reference lists of these articles to find additional sources. Then we conducted literature searches using PsycINFO and PubMed to find other relevant studies published between April 2001 and April 2011 . There are two distinct literatures on depression in China. Developmental psychopathology research has emphasized adolescent samples and cognitive models of causation; cultural-clinical psychology and cultural psychiatry research have emphasized adult samples and the meanings associated with emotions, symptoms, and syndromes. Both approaches to the study of depression in China have yielded important findings but have also highlighted issues that could be better addressed by incorporating the other approach. Beyond depression in China, the psychological study of culture and mental health more generally would benefit from greater exchange between developmental psychopathology and cultural-clinical psychology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".