MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105070726 · doi:10.1027//1015-5759.16.1.66

Sociotropy-Autonomy and the Beck Depression Inventory

2000· article· en· W2105070726 on OpenAlexaff
T. Sato, Doug McCann

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Psychological Assessment · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyBeck Depression InventoryAutonomyDepression (economics)Developmental psychologyPersonalityPersonality Assessment InventoryClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary: According to Beck's cognitive theory of depression, individuals who score high on the personality dimensions of either sociotropy or autonomy are considered to be vulnerable to depression. Although past research has provided abundant support for the relationship between sociotropy and depression, very little support has been provided for the relationship between autonomy and depression. Two studies were conducted to investigate the relationship between the items of Beck Depression Inventory ( Beck et al., 1979 ), one of the most commonly used measures in the assessment of an individual's level of depression, and measures of sociotropy and autonomy. In both studies, participants completed the Beck Depression Inventory and various measures of sociotropy and autonomy. The results suggested that the majority of the items of the Beck Depression Inventory were related to measures of sociotropy rather than autonomy. These findings suggest that the lack of support for the relationship between autonomy and depression may be due partially to the specific measures used in the assessment of sociotropy and autonomy as well as depression.

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)0.004
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations25
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Psychological AssessmentSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207