A Multisource Approach to Self‐Critical Vulnerability to Depression: The Moderating Role of Attachment<sup>*</sup>
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
The present study investigated the effects of self-criticism, dependency, and attachment variables in depression among couples. We utilized a multisource design that involved self-reports and spouse reports of personality and depression. This approach enabled us to explore the patterns of relations between self-reported and the spouse's report of the partner's view of self-criticism, dependency, and attachment dimensions, as well as the contribution of the latter to the moderation of distress. Participants were 120 couples in their first marriages. It was found that: (1) Self- and spouses' reported self-criticism are both associated with depression; (2) negative assessments of personality factors and attachment models by the self and spouse contribute uniquely in predicting depressive symptomatology; and (3) beyond the covariation between target's depression and marital maladjustment, attachment models of self and of other as reported by both the self and spouse moderate the effects of self-reported personality vulnerability on depressive symptomatology. Our results indicate that self-ratings and ratings by others must both be considered in the context of depression in close interpersonal relationships. Beyond the methodological implications of multisource data, our findings support the view of depression as an interpersonal process.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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