Cognitive vulnerability to depressive symptoms in adolescents in urban and rural Hunan, China: A multiwave longitudinal study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current multiwave longitudinal study examined the applicability of two cognitive vulnerability-stress models of depression-Beck's (1967, 1983) cognitive theory and the hopelessness theory (Abramson, Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989)-in two independent samples of adolescents from Hunan Province, China (one rural and one urban). During an initial assessment, participants completed measures assessing dysfunctional attitudes (Beck, 1967, 1983), negative cognitive style (Abramson et al., 1989), neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1992), depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms. Once a month for the subsequent 6 months, participants completed measures assessing the occurrence of different types of negative events, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms. Results provided support for cognitive vulnerability factors as predictors of increases in depressive symptoms following the occurrence of higher than average levels of negative events in Chinese adolescents. The results also supported the specificity of these two cognitive vulnerability factors as predictors of depressive versus anxiety symptoms following the occurrence of higher than average levels of negative events (i.e., symptom specificity), and the ability of cognitive vulnerability factors to predict prospective change in depressive symptoms above and beyond the effects of trait neuroticism (i.e., etiological specificity).
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".