MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120552289 · doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9099-y

Community types and mental health: a multilevel study of local environmental stress and coping

2007· article· en· W2120552289 on OpenAlexafffund
Véronique Dupéré, Douglas D. Perkins

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Community Psychology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthMinistère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport Québec
KeywordsStressorMental healthPsychologyHealth psychologyMultilevel modelAffect (linguistics)AnxietyCoping (psychology)Social supportPublic healthClinical psychologyEnvironmental healthSocial psychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research has found that neighborhood structural characteristics can influence residents' mental health. Few studies, however, have explored the proximal reasons behind such influences. This study investigates how different types of communities, in terms of environmental stressors (social and physical disorder and fear of crime) and social resources (informal ties and formal organizational participation), affect well-being, depression, and anxiety in adult residents. Data are from a survey of 412 residents nested in 50 street blocks. Block stressors and resources were cluster analyzed to identify six block types. After controlling for several individual- and block-level characteristics, results from multilevel models suggest that in communities facing relatively few stressors, higher levels of formal participation are associated with better mental health. Because high levels of formal participation were not found in communities with higher levels of stressors, the impact of participation in such contexts could not be examined. However, results suggest that in communities where stressors are more common, isolation from neighbors may have a protective effect on mental health.

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)0.003
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.375 · 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

Citations87
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Community PsychologySame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207