MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405365296 · doi:10.35502/jcswb.340

An analysis of patterns and predictors of self-reported common mental disorders in Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria

2024· article· en· W4405365296 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adeniyi Sunday Gbadegesin, Godwin Ikwuyatum

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Community Safety and Well-Being · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyPsychologyMedicineDemographyEnvironmental healthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Common mental disorders (CMDs) have been on the rise in developing countries. This study set out to unravel the pattern of CMD prevalence in a traditional African city, Ibadan. The study, in addition to socio-economic and demographic variables, takes into cognisance the effect of some peculiar environmental variables. The Self-Reporting Questionnaire-20 was used for CMD screening, and the questionnaire was administered to 1,200 respondents in a cross-sectional survey approach. The results showed that the overall pattern of CMD prevalence is random (Global Moran’s I (P = 0.78, I = 0.00 and Z = 0.29)). Respondents without education reported the highest cases of CMD (48.6%). When combined together, migrants reported 52.5% of the CMDs. The significant variables are food security (β = −0.198), green space (β = −0.057), migration status (β = −0.054), flood-prone residence (β = 0.453), low-quality housing (β = −0.061), frequent recreation participation (β = −0.071), experience of spousal violence (β = 0.199), positive self-rated health (β = −0.134) and positive quality of life (β = −0.205). The predictors of CMD explained about 35.8% of the variation (R2) and an R value of 59.9%. The study showed that CMDs occur among most of the urban population. Adequate media sensitization will have significant ameliorating effects on urban residents.

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)0.003
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.325 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Community Safety and Well-BeingSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207