MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946863308

Statistical Analysis of Mental Health Factors

2017· article· en· W2946863308 on OpenAlexaffabout
Danielle Gagné, Alan Yong

Bibliographic record

VenueStudent Research Proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBinomial regressionMental healthMarital statusDemographyLogistic regressionDepression (economics)PsychologyMoodRegression analysisVariablesGerontologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryStatisticsMathematicsSociologyPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to build a model that effectively predicts the presence of depression in 25,113 Canadian citizens ages 15 and over living in the ten provinces. Predictors were chosen for their potential to introduce significant stress into the lives of individuals. The tested variables obtained from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) of 2012 include current age, sex, marital status, BMI, frequency of alcohol consumption, presence of cancer, drug use, employment status, originating from Canada, and current school enrollment. These variables were subjected to a forward selection process in SPSS to fit a statistically significant binomial logistic regression model. The relationship between individual variables and depression was also examined through the Crosstabs function in SPSS. Results suggested that all chosen explanatory variables have a significant association with the response variable except presence of cancer, which also did not show significance in the final fitted model. Key Terms: Mood disorder, Depression, Mental Health, Canada Discipline: Statistics Faculty Mentor: Dr. Karen Buro

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.512
GPT teacher head0.654
Teacher spread0.141 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudent Research ProceedingsSame topicStatistical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207