MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Birth and Death of Belonging

2013· book-chapter· en· W1632418361 on OpenAlexaff
Jeff Schimel, Jeff Greenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExistentialismTerror management theoryMeaning (existential)ImmortalityPerspective (graphical)Psychoanalytic theoryDeath anxietyPsychologySocial psychologyEpistemologyPsychoanalysisSociologyAnxietyPsychotherapistPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Terror management theory (TMT) (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1986 ) offers an evolutionary–existential–psychoanalytic perspective on the human motive to belong. According to this view, the evolution of sophisticated intellect allowed for consideration of the past and future in decision making, thereby freeing human beings from fixed response patterns. However, it also made humans uniquely aware of the inevitability of their own death. To manage potentially debilitating anxiety resulting from this awareness, humans have had to give up some of this freedom so as to feel securely embedded in a cultural meaning system (a cultural worldview) that provides meaning, self-worth, and a sense of immortality. Because other people are an important source of self-esteem and validation for cultural worldview beliefs, social connections with similar others are maintained to mitigate existential fear. A large empirical literature supporting this theoretical account is reviewed. Ensuing discussion considers how a TMT perspective can lend understanding to the multifarious reactions people have to social exclusion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionFrench-language works237,207