MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165636509 · doi:10.1037/a0036087

Depression and anger across 25 years: Changing vulnerabilities in the VSA model.

2014· article· en· W2165636509 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew D. Johnson, Nancy L. Galambos, Harvey Krahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Psychology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsAngerPsychologyMental healthLongitudinal studyVulnerability (computing)Developmental psychologyClinical psychologyLife course approachDepression (economics)Young adultPsychological resiliencePsychiatryMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guided by the vulnerability-stress adaptation (VSA) model of marriage and a developmental systems perspective, the current study examined the association of mental health trajectories (depressive symptoms and expressed anger) across the transition to adulthood (ages 18 to 25) with perceived life stress in young adulthood (age 32) and adaptive interaction with a romantic partner and relationship risk at midlife (age 43), accounting for concurrent age 43 mental health. Data from a 25-year prospective, longitudinal study of 341 Canadians (178 women and 163 men) show age 18 levels of both mental health variables predicted perceived life stress and intimate relationship outcomes. The slopes for expressed anger and depressive symptoms were associated with perceived life stress, and relationship risk was also predicted by the slope of expressed anger. Higher perceived life stress at age 32 was associated with less adaptive interaction and increased relationship risk at age 43. Evidence for mediating effects was also found. Implications for theory development, future research, and clinical intervention 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family PsychologySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207