MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170747515 · doi:10.1080/01650250344000235

Gender differences in and risk factors for depression in adolescence: A 4-year longitudinal study

2003· article· en· W2170747515 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nancy L. Galambos, Bonnie J. Leadbeater, Erin T. Barker

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)PsychologyDepressive symptomsLongitudinal studyMajor depressive episodePopulationClinical psychologyDemographySocial supportRisk factorPsychiatryMedicineCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study used longitudinal data (N 1/4 1322; 648 males, 674 females) from adolescents ages 12 to 19 years (in 1994) to investigate gender differences in and risk factors for depressive symptoms and major depressive episodes (MDEs). The sample had participated in three waves of Canada’s National Population Health Survey (1994, 1996, and 1998). Results showed that although there was not a statistically significant increase in depressive symptoms in early adolescence, there was a robust gender difference in the levels of depressive symptoms and the prevalence of MDE, with girls more affected than boys. Over time, decreases in social support and increases in smoking were both linked to increases in depressive symptoms. Moreover, youth who smoked and who were free from major depression in 1994 were 1.4 times more likely to report a MDE in 1996 or 1998. To be effective, prevention and treatment programmes for depression may also need to address risks such as poor social support and smoking, as these risk factors may serve to maintain depressive symptoms over time.

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)0.001
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations314
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207