MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408551900 · doi:10.1177/0192513x251322143

The Impact of Social Support: Fathers’ Depressive Symptoms and Parenting Stress

2025· article· en· W4408551900 on OpenAlexafffund
Emily Hogan, Dana Ronaghan, Karis Cochrane, Alyssa Romaniuk, Lara Penner‐Goeke, Taryn Gaulke, Jennifer Theule

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Psychological AssociationUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsPsychologySocial supportDevelopmental psychologyDepressive symptomsClinical psychologyStress (linguistics)AnxietyPsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parental depressive symptoms are positively correlated with levels of parenting stress. Greater parenting stress predicts negative outcomes for both parents and children, and worse family functioning. Social support is a key protective factor against depressive symptoms; however, minimal research has examined the relationship between social support, paternal depressive symptoms, and parenting stress among fathers. Seventy-nine fathers of children, aged 2-6 years old, completed an online survey. Mediation analyses, using Hayes' PROCESS macro, determined significant indirect effects of social support on parenting stress through paternal depressive symptoms. Our findings elucidate the need for social support from family, friends, and significant others to improve depressive symptomology and parenting stress among fathers. We encourage fathers to seek support from friends, family, and their partners, to benefit their mental health and the family unit. Clinicians working with fathers should be aware of the possibility of co-occurring problems related to these factors.

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 score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207