MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168851695 · doi:10.1037//0021-843x.110.2.282

Mood-induced changes on the Implicit Association Test in recovered depressed patients.

2001· article· en· W2168851695 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Gemar, Zindel V. Segal, Sandra Sagrati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Abnormal Psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysphoriaDysfunctional familyPsychologyAssociation (psychology)MoodClinical psychologyImplicit-association testCognitionDepression (economics)Depressed moodCognitive vulnerabilityCognitive biasDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryDepressive symptomsAnxietyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A mood induction paradigm was used to examine dysphoria-related changes in two types of cognitive processing in individuals who had previously experienced depression. Formerly depressed patients (n = 23) and never-depressed controls (n = 27) completed the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale, a self-report measure of effortful processing, and performed the Implicit Association Test, an automatic-reaction time task that measures evaluative bias, before and after a negative-mood induction. The formerly depressed group showed both an increase in endorsement of dysfunctional attitudes and a more negative evaluative bias for self-relevant information after the induction, relative to controls--however, there was no association between the mood-linked changes observed on these two measures. The shift in evaluative bias shown by the formerly depressed group was similar to that seen in a group of 32 currently depressed individuals. These findings suggest that even a mild negative mood in formerly depressed individuals can reinstate some of the cognitive features observed in depression itself.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.345
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations213
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Abnormal PsychologySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207