Cognitive therapy for depression: Coping style matters
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
Aim: The finding by Jacobson and colleagues that there was no difference in treatment outcome for individuals treated with a complete cognitive therapy (CT) package and those receiving behavioural activation raised serious concerns about the mediational role of cognition in depression. The present study was designed to test whether the interaction between coping and cognition predicts changes in depressive symptomatology. Method: The sample ( N =30) was derived from the full CT condition of the study conducted by Jacobson and colleagues. Therapy transcripts from the third session were rated to assess cognitive errors and coping. Change in depression scores from pre‐treatment to post‐treatment was computed. Findings: Analyses demonstrated that engagement in self‐reliance and not engaging in escape coping predicted greater decreases in levels of depression after CT. Implications for practice: These findings suggest that engaging in specific types of adaptive coping strategies and avoiding maladaptive coping may be important in predicting decreases in depression for individuals who have high levels of certain cognitive errors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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