Association Between Depression Symptoms and Emotional-Communication Dynamics
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communicating emotional experiences effectively is critical for adaptive functioning and personal and interpersonal well-being. Here, we investigated whether variability in depression symptoms undermines people’s ability to express their emotions to others (“emotional expressive accuracy”) and how those communication dynamics influence other’s impressions. In Phase 1, 49 “targets” were videotaped describing significant autobiographical events; they then watched their videos and continuously rated how positive/negative they were feeling throughout the narrative. In Phase 2, 171 “perceivers” watched subsets of videos from targets and similarly rated each target’s affect. Results from 1,645 unique target–perceiver observations indicate a link between target’s depressive symptoms and impaired emotional expressive accuracy for positive events, B = −0.002, t (1,501) = −3.152, p = .002. Likewise, more depressive targets were rated less favorably by perceivers, again when sharing positive events, B = −0.012, t (1,511) = −10.145, p < .001. Given the beneficial effects of “capitalization”—sharing positive experiences with others—these findings may illustrate one link between depressive symptoms and impoverished relationships.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it