University Students’ Coping Behaviours and Perceived Parental Depression: The Role of Hope and Implications for Counsellors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown links between perceived parental depressive symptomology and young adults’ depressive symptoms (Rounding & Jacobson, 2013). Hope has been linked to fewer depressive symptoms and to greater adaptive coping behaviours (Chang & DeSimone, 2001). The relation between perceived parental depression, hope, and undergraduate university students’ coping behaviours was examined. Participants were 223 undergraduates (51 males, 172 females) aged 17 to 24. Beyond perceived parental depression, hope predicted higher levels of religion/spirituality, active coping, and planning, and predicted lower levels of humour and behavioural disengagement. Implications for counselling clients at risk for intergenerational depression are discussed.\nLa recherche a démontré qu’il existe des liens entre la symptomatologie de la dépression parentale perçue et les symptômes dépressifs chez les jeunes adultes (Rounding & Jacobson, 2013). On a établi un lien entre l’espoir et une diminution des symptômes de dépression et une amélioration des comportements adaptatifs (Chang & DeSimone, 2001). On a examiné la relation entre la dépression parentale perçue, l’espoir, et les comportements d’adaptation chez les étudiants universitaires de premier cycle. Les participants comptent 223 universitaires de premier cycle (51 hommes, 172 femmes) de 17 à 24 ans. Au-delà de la dépression parentale perçue, le facteur espoir a permis de prédire des niveaux plus élevés de religion/spiritualité, d’adaptation active, et de planification, tout en permettant de prédire des niveaux plus faibles sur le plan de l’humeur et du désengagement comportemental. On y discute des implications pour les clients en counseling à risque de la dépression intergénérationnelle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".