The response styles theory of depression: A test of specificity and causal mediation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This prospective study tested the diathesis-stress and causal mediation components of the response styles theory of depression. In addition, it examined whether rumination predicts increases in anxious as well as depressive symptoms. At Time 1, 87 college students completed measures of rumination, hopelessness, depressive symptoms, and anxious symptoms. Participants also completed measures of hopelessness, depressive symptoms, and anxious symptoms at three time points later in the semester: immediately after receiving their most difficult midterm exam grade (Time 2), 4–8 hours later (Time 3), and 4 days later (Time 4). Regardless of exam outcome, the tendency to ruminate in response to depressed mood was associated with: (1) increases in anxious symptoms between Time 1 and Time 3; and (2) increases in both anxious and depressive symptoms between Time 1 and Time 4. In addition, the relationship between rumination and increases in both depressive and anxious symptoms was mediated by hopelessness. In other words, individuals with a ruminative response style exhibited increases in both depressive and anxious symptoms because they exhibited increases in hopelessness.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it