MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anxiety and Depression: Congruent, Separate, or Both?1

2003· article· en· W2165328862 on OpenAlexaff
Norman S. Endler, Sophia Macrodimitris, Nancy L. Kocovski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Biobehavioral Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyPsychologyDepression (economics)Trait anxietyTraitClinical psychologyConstruct (python library)PsychiatryDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated whether using state‐trait distinctions of both depression and anxiety would allow for further identification of the unique and overlapping features of these two symptom structures. Three hundred and seventy‐one undergraduate students (122 men, 249 women) responded to questionnaires exploring both state and trait depression and anxiety. Results revealed that women reported higher levels of depression and anxiety for all measures except for state anxiety, where men scored higher than women. Results also demonstrated stronger within‐construct correlations (i.e., state depression with trait depression) than between construct correlations (i.e., state depression with trait anxiety), supporting the distinctness of the two constructs. The uniqueness of depression and anxiety was further supported by factor analysis. Overlap in symptoms also occurred, but the correlations were generally stronger for congruent symptom types (i.e., state depression and state anxiety rather than state depression and trait anxiety). Results are discussed in terms of viewing depression and anxiety as distinct constructs with overlapping features.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Biobehavioral ResearchSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207