MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318170158 · doi:10.1037/a0033486

If it be love indeed tell me how much: Early core beliefs associated with excessive reassurance seeking in depression.

2014· article· en· W2318170158 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Lyndsay E. Evraire, David J. A. Dozois

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyDepression (economics)Core (optical fiber)PsychoanalysisClinical psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored core beliefs associated with excessive reassurance seeking (ERS) in depression. Undergraduate students (n = 303) completed measures of early maladaptive schemas, attachment styles, ERS, and depression, along with a subsequent measure of depressive symptoms 6 weeks later. Anxious attachment, avoidant attachment, and an abandonment/instability schema each added to the prediction of ERS beyond the effects of depression. Moreover, avoidant attachment and the abandonment/instability schema moderated the relationship between ERS and depression over time. These results are consistent with the idea that individuals with early core beliefs reflecting insecurity in relationships seek reassurance. The findings also suggest that it may not be ERS behaviour per se, but rather characteristics of the individual in combination with ERS that are associated with depression.

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)0.007
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations32
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportementSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207