MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128568353 · doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_17

Interpersonal Vulnerability to Depression in High-Risk Children: The Role of Insecure Attachment and Reassurance Seeking

2005· article· en· W2128568353 on OpenAlexaff
John R. Z. Abela, Benjamin L. Hankin, Emily A. P. Haigh, Philippe Adams, Theresa Vinokuroff, Lisa Trayhern

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInsecure attachmentDepression (economics)Vulnerability (computing)Depressive symptomsInterpersonal communicationClinical psychologyHistory of depressionPsychiatryInterpersonal relationshipAttachment theoryDevelopmental psychologyAnxietySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the relation between insecure attachment and depression in a sample of 140 children (69 boys and 71 girls; ages 6 to 14) whose parents have a history of major depressive episodes. In addition, we examined whether this relation was moderated by excessive reassurance seeking. Children completed measures assessing insecure attachment to parents, excessive reassurance seeking, and current depressive symptoms. In addition, children and their parents participated in a semistructured clinical interview assessing children's current and past history of depressive symptoms and episodes. In line with hypotheses, children who exhibited high levels of both insecure attachment and excessive reassurance seeking experienced higher levels of current depressive symptoms than children who possessed only one or neither of these interpersonal risk factors. Furthermore, the interaction of insecure attachment with excessive reassurance was associated with a past history and greater severity of depressive episodes even after controlling for current depressive symptoms.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations132
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Child & Adolescent PsychologySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207