MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319601055 · doi:10.54097/ehss.v8i.4238

The Relationship between Working Memory and Depressive Symptoms in Adolescents and Relevant Interventions

2023· article· en· W4319601055 on OpenAlexaff
Yifan Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorking memoryPsychologyCognitionPsychological interventionMoodClinical psychologyIntervention (counseling)Depression (economics)Perspective (graphical)Depressive symptomsDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Major depressive disorder can have a serious negative impact on the cognitive functioning of adolescents, while most existing research focused on the biological, genetic and social factors of major depressive disorder. Working memory is a system related to the manipulation of short-term memory and is part of what constitutes human cognition. The current study reviewed the recent studies exploring the relationship between working memory and major depressive disorder in adolescents and related applications for treatment. As a result, in general, the ability of working memory was negatively associated with major depression, accompanied by negative correlations between it with various relevant factors and depressive symptoms. Also, intervening the working memory could alleviate major depression in adolescents. This paper only provided a generalized discussion regarding the relationship between working memory and depressive symptoms, while the interactions and specific associations of internal systems of working memory with depressive symptoms are expected to be confirmed in the future research. This review can contribute to future research on the relationship between specific working memory systems and mood disorders from a cognitive psychology perspective. It can also provide some suggestions to the design of prevention and intervention programs for depression at schools.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education Humanities and Social SciencesSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207