MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096057785

depressive symptoms of ageing South Asian Canadians

2014· article· en· W7096057785 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepressive symptomsMental healthDepression (economics)South asiaAgeingHealth professionals
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. This study aims to identify socio-cultural–specific characteristics of depressive symptoms in ageing South Asians. Methods. Data were collected in a probability-sampled survey on 210 South Asians aged 55 years and older in Calgary. Depressive symptoms associated with different genders, age, religious affiliations, and the length of residency in Canada were examined. Results. A mean of 2.6 depressive symptoms was reported and 21.4% participants reported being mildly depressive. Differences in depressive symptoms were observed in participants from different gender groups, religious groups, and lengths of residency in Canada. Conclusions. Health providers should understand the intra-cultural differences affecting depressive symptoms and be proactive when discussing commonly reported depressive symptoms with patients, as a strategy for early identification. Mental health professionals should pay attention to intra-cultural and gender differences governing depressive symptoms. Understanding the most frequently reported depressive symptoms enables practitioners to concentrate on these symptoms when they surface. Health providers are encouraged to actively discuss commonly reported depressive symptoms with patients.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMental Health Treatment and Access→French-language works237,207→