Coping with loss: A qualitative study of the experience of sibling bereavement in young adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing literature in the area of bereavement as it pertains to young persons focuses primarily upon the death of a parent, and the age groups most studied are either children or adolescents. The goal of this thesis project, therefore, has been to develop an in-depth understanding of the experience of sibling bereavement in young adulthood, looking at factors that both helped and hindered effective coping. Specifically, in-depth interviews with 7 young women who had suffered the loss of a sister or brother while between the ages of 18 and 30 were conducted in an effort to shed light on this type of loss during this stage in life. Participants shared that the loss of the sibling caused changes in their family dynamics, alterations in their physical health and psychological well-being, modified their academic or occupational goals, and transformed many of their social bonds. Helpful methods of coping with the sibling’s absence included using the funeral as a means of gaining closure, remaining emotionally isolated immediately after the death, drawing on social support as time passed, striving to maintain a symbolic connection with the deceased sister or brother, and keeping active. Participants discussed denying the loss and relying on the “wrong” people for support as unhelpful ways of coping. Knowing that the sibling died without pain, being surrounded by understanding people, and the structure provided by academic pursuits were cited as having been external factors that facilitated coping, while negative circumstances around the death event, issues within the family, feeling disconnected from others, experiencing pressure from work, dealing with constant reminders of the loss, and not having the severity of sibling loss acknowledged by society were described as outside influences that hindered effective coping. Based on these findings, a theory of sibling bereavement in young adulthood is advanced, and potential ways of providing support to such individuals are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".