Joint trajectories of depression and perfectionism across adolescence and childhood risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The codevelopment of symptoms of depression and socially prescribed perfectionism across adolescence (age 12-17) and non-age-overlapping childhood predictors (age 10-11) of joint trajectory group membership were examined in a sample of 700 Canadian youth. Results indicated that most adolescents (75.8%) followed a trajectory of low depression symptoms (low stable), whereas 15.7% followed an increasing trajectory (increasing), and 8.5% followed a trajectory that began high and decreased over time (high decreasing). More girls than boys were found in the increasing and high decreasing depression trajectories. Adolescents followed three distinct trajectories of socially prescribed perfectionism: 41.6% were in a low stable group, 40.5% in a moderate increasing group, and 17.9% in a high increasing group. Eight percent followed a high-risk dual trajectory of increasing depression and high increasing socially prescribed perfectionism. This joint trajectory was predicted by being bullied, anxious, and relationally aggressive (compared to the low-risk trajectory of low stable depression and perfectionism) at ages 10 and 11. These same predictors, along with poorer family functioning and lower family income, differentiated the joint high decreasing depression/high increasing perfectionism group from the low/low joint group, which comprised of 3.8% of the sample. The developmental progression was best characterized as depression leading to socially prescribed perfectionism. Implications for clinical practice 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".