MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379386569 · doi:10.1177/0192513x231181369

Parenting While Depressed: The Influence of Interpersonal Supports and Community Resources for Mothers

2023· article· en· W4379386569 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Dow‐Fleisner, Christopher F. Baum, Shanta Pandey, Summer Sherburne Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInterpersonal communicationDevelopmental psychologyPerceptionPsychological interventionChild rearingDepression (economics)Interpersonal relationshipClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maternal depression may have a significant impact on multiple aspects of parenting throughout childhood, leading to negative outcomes for children. However, the impact of depression on parenting perceptions, practices, and involvement may differ among mothers, particularly when protective factors are present. Using data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, we compared three aspects of parenting (perceptions, practices, and involvement) between depressed and non-depressed mothers, and then investigated the influence of interpersonal supports and community resources on these aspects of the parenting, specifically for depressed mothers. Findings indicated that mothers with depression were equally involved with the child at home, but were more likely to hold negative perceptions of parenting. Furthermore, interpersonal supports and community resources had an indirect impact on parenting practices and involvement through perceptions of parenting, highlighting the importance of interventions for mothers with depression that address the appraisal and expectations of parenting stress and competencies.

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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207