Historical loss thinking and symptoms of depression are influenced by ethnic experience in American Indian college students.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recent research has indicated that historical loss may play an important role in the experience of depression symptoms in American Indian/Alaska Native people. Increased frequency of historical loss thinking has been related to symptoms of depression and other pervasive psychological outcomes (i.e., substance abuse) in American Indian and Canadian First Nations communities. The current study investigated how aspects of ethnic minority experience relate to the incidence of historical loss thinking and symptoms of depression in American Indian adults. METHOD: Data are presented from 123 self-identified American Indian college students (ages 18-25, 67.50% female) who participated in the study in return for course credit and/or entrance into a raffle for gift cards. Participants completed the Adolescent Historical Loss Scale (AHLS), Scale of Ethnic Experiences (SEE), and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D). Indirect effects of ethnic experience on symptoms of depression through historical loss thinking were calculated with nonparametric bootstrapping procedures. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Results indicated that a strong ethnic identification, desire to predominantly socialize with other American Indians, and perceptions of discrimination were associated with increased historical loss thinking. Feelings of comfort and assimilation with the mainstream American culture were negatively related to historical loss thinking. Only perception of discrimination was directly related to symptoms of depression; however, ethnic identification and the preference to predominantly socialize with other American Indians were both indirectly related to elevated depressive symptoms through increased historical loss thinking. The clinical implications for these results are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".