MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461494701 · doi:10.1002/jclp.22338

Testing a Revised Interpersonal Theory of Depression Using a Laboratory Measure of Excessive Reassurance Seeking

2016· article· en· W2461494701 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeremy G. Stewart, Kate L. Harkness

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyAbandonment (legal)Interpersonal communicationDepression (economics)TraitClinical psychologyInterpersonal relationshipCognitionDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study tested whether core beliefs with themes of abandonment and rejection moderated the link between trait and behavioral excessive reassurance seeking (ERS) and interpersonal rejection. METHOD: = 1.24) levels of depression symptoms and their male romantic partners. Couples reported their depression, ERS, abandonment/rejection cognitions, and relationship quality. We also coded women's reassurance-seeking behavior during an audiotaped discussion task. RESULTS: Among women with high levels of depression symptoms and low levels of abandonment/rejection core beliefs, behavioral ERS was associated with lower partner-reported relationship quality. Self-reported ERS was significantly associated with partner relationship quality, but the effect was not moderated by depression or core beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: ERS is a potent predictor of stress and subsequent depression. Our findings underscore the need to better understand factors (e.g., cognitions, partner characteristics) that may determine whether ERS behaviors beget interpersonal stress and rejection.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations39
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207