Depression symptoms in Canadian psychology graduate students: Do research productivity, funding, and the academic advisory relationship play a role?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression is one of the most common psychological disorders affecting university students (Rimmer, Halikas, & Schuckit, 1982; Vazquez & Blanco, 2008); however, undergraduate students have received the majority of the research focus. The limited research available on graduate students suggests they may also be vulnerable to developing depression (Eisenberg, Gollust, Golberstein, & Hefner, 2007). The current investigation provides initial data on depression symptoms in Canadian psychology graduate students. Participants included psychology graduate students from across Canada (N 292; 87% women) who were currently enrolled in clinical, experimental, counselling, and educational programmes. Each of the participants completed the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) and measures of: funding, research productivity, hours worked, and their advisory relationship. A substantial proportion of students (33%) reported clinically significant symptoms of depression (CES-D 16), with a significant minority reporting severe symptoms of depression and impairment. There were no differences in symptom reporting across programme type; however, results of regression analyses indicated that advisory relationship satisfaction and greater current weekly hours worked were significant predictors of depressive symptoms for students enrolled in experimental programmes. In contrast, depression symptoms were unrelated to funding, research productivity, hours worked, and advisory relationship satisfaction for students in all other programmes. Implications and future directions for research are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it