MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944559381 · doi:10.1080/01494929.2019.1610136

Marital quality and depression: a review

2019· review· en· W2944559381 on OpenAlex
M.R. Goldfarb, Gilles Trudel

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMarriage & Family Review · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsModerationPsychologyDepression (economics)Association (psychology)Marital statusClinical psychologyLongitudinal studyDevelopmental psychologyGerontologyDemographySocial psychologyMedicinePopulationPsychotherapistSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present review examines (a) the published literature on the association between marital quality and depression in mixed-age groups, and (b) the association between these variables during later life. With regards to both issues, target studies were grouped into three categories: cross-sectional research, longitudinal research, and research on mediator and moderator variables. The main theoretical models that account for the relation between marital quality and depression are briefly presented. Whereas the evidence for a cross-sectional association between marital quality and depression seems robust, longitudinal research as well as research on mediator/moderator variables is less conclusive. This is particularly so vis-a-vis older adults, where studies are scarce. We conclude with suggestions for future research and the clinical implications of work in this area.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.329 · 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