MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2308534549 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150699

A Cross-Cultural Study of the Cognitive Model of Depression: Cognitive Experiences Converge between Egypt and Canada

2016· article· en· W2308534549 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shadi Beshai, Keith S. Dobson, Ashraf Adel, Niveen Hanna

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Regina
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsDysfunctional familyDepression (economics)CognitionClinical psychologyPsychologyBeck Depression InventoryPsychiatryMajor depressive disorderMedicineAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Models of depression that arise in the West need to be examined in other regions of the world. This study examined a set of foundational hypotheses generated by Beck's cognitive model of depression among depressed individuals in Egypt and Canada. METHOD: We recruited 29 depressed and 29 non-depressed Egyptians and compared their results with those of 35 depressed and 38 non-depressed Canadians. Depression status was ascertained using a structured interview, scores on the Beck Depression Inventory, and scores on the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire. Participants completed questionnaires designed to measure the frequency of negative and positive automatic thoughts (ATQ-N, BHS, and ATQ-P), and dysfunctional attitudes (DAS). RESULTS: Depressed individuals in both countries had significantly more negative thoughts about self and future, greater frequency of dysfunctional attitudes, and diminished positive self-thoughts in comparison to non-depressed individuals. Egyptians generally showed significantly more dysfunctional attitudes than their Canadian counterparts. DISCUSSION: The four hypotheses that were tested were supported among the depressed Egyptian sample, which is consistent with the cognitive model. Implications for the cognitive-behavioral model and treatment for this group of sufferers 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207