CONGRUENCY BETWEEN DEPRESSOGENIC SCHEMAS AND LIFE EVENTS FOR THE PREDICTION OF DEPRESSIVE RELAPSE IN REMITTED OLDER PATIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Activation of a depressogenic schema by a negative life event is said to be more likely when the life event corresponds to the same domain of vulnerability (congruency hypothesis). Specifically, this refers to a negative interpersonal event for the sociotropy/dependency schema, and an obstacle or a failure in achieving a goal for the autonomy/accomplishment or self-criticism schema. This study examines the congruency hypothesis for the prediction of relapse. Older patients were followed for 6 months after remission from major depression. Life events were rated as interpersonal or autonomous in nature. Their subjective impact on social relations and on autonomous functioning was also assessed. Congruency between dependency schema and interpersonal events, but only when the subjective impact of event was taken into consideration, predicted relapse. Non-congruency between an autonomous schema and an event rated as impacting the social domain also predicted relapse. However, in both analyses of dependency and autonomy schemas, impact of event on social relations on its own predicted relapse. These findings support the cognitive vulnerability theory of depressive relapse, underlining the importance of considering how the person views the influence of life events and the determining impact of stressful life events on social relations.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".