MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094787297 · doi:10.1002/jclp.20263

Immature dependence and self‐criticism predict the recurrence of major depression

2006· article· en· W2094787297 on OpenAlexaff
Myriam Mongrain, Faith Leather

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf-criticismNeuroticismPsychologyDepression (economics)CriticismClinical psychologyDepressive symptomsDevelopmental psychologyPersonalityPsychiatryPsychoanalysisAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examined the associations of unipolar depression with immature dependence and self-criticism (S.J. Blatt et al., 1995) in a sample of graduate students with a diagnosed history of depression. A battery of tests was completed by 158 students, and a subset (n =102) was reached approximately 20 months later for the assessment of new depressive onsets. Self-criticism and neuroticism were uniquely associated with a past history of depression, and self-criticism and immature dependence interacted in predicting past occurrences of depression. Self-criticism was increasingly associated with past depressive episodes as level of immature dependence increased. The interaction of immature dependence and self-criticism was also evident in predicting future occurrence of depression after controlling statistically for the effects of current symptoms, neuroticism, certain Axis II diagnoses, and number of previous depressive episodes. This interactive effect suggests that individuals with high levels of both self-criticism and immature dependence are particularly prone to depressive episodes.

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)0.006
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.396 · 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

Citations64
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207