MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329872252 · doi:10.1017/s0954579415000309

Affective patterns in triadic family interactions: Associations with adolescent depression

2015· article· en· W2329872252 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Hollenstein, Nicholas B. Allen, Lisa Sheeber

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment and Psychopathology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Depression (economics)Developmental psychologyClinical psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Affective family processes are associated with the development of depression during adolescence. However, empirical description of these processes is generally based on examining affect at the individual or dyadic level. The purpose of this study was to examine triadic patterns of affect during parent-adolescent interactions in families with or without a depressed adolescent. We used state space grid analysis to characterize the state of all three actors simultaneously. Compared to healthy controls, triads with depressed adolescents displayed a wider range of affect, demonstrated less predictability of triadic affective sequences, spent more time in and returned more quickly to discrepant affective states, and spent less time in and returned more slowly to matched affective states, particularly while engaged in a problem-solving interaction. Furthermore, we identified seven unique triadic states in which triads with depressed adolescents spent significantly more time than triads with healthy controls. The present study enhances understanding of family affective processes related to depression by taking a more systemic approach and revealing triadic patterns that go beyond individual and dyadic analyses.

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)0.000
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.335 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopment and PsychopathologySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207