MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118304798 · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.112.2.417

Life Stress, the "Kindling" Hypothesis, and the Recurrence of Depression: Considerations From a Life Stress Perspective.

2005· review· en· W2118304798 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Review · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Depression (economics)Stress (linguistics)Clinical psychologyConfusionPsychotherapistDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Major depression is frequently characterized by recurrent episodes over the life course. First lifetime episodes of depression, however, are typically more strongly associated with major life stress than are successive recurrences. A key theoretical issue involves how the role of major life stress changes from an initial episode over subsequent recurrences. The primary conceptual framework for research on life stress and recurrence of depression is the "kindling" hypothesis (R. M. Post, 1992). Despite the strengths of the kindling hypothesis, a review of the research literature reveals inconsistencies and confusion about life stress and its implications for the recurrence of depression. Adopting a life stress perspective, the authors introduce 3 major themes that resolve the inconsistencies in the current literature. They integrate these themes and extrapolate the ideas with available data to develop a preliminary framework for evaluating competing explanatory models and to guide research on life stress and the recurrence of 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.203 · 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