Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes were 1) to examine the level of nutritional risk among recently bereaved individuals, with or without intervention for grief resolution, and those in coupled relationships and 2) to examine the dietary issues faced by the three groups. METHODS: Twenty-two individuals from the above-mentioned categories were selected. Background information was elicited using a questionnaire. Focus group interviews and the Determine Checklist were used to assess dietary issues and nutritional risk, respectively. RESULTS: Bereaved individuals, irrespective of whether they had counseling for grief resolution or not, had a moderate risk for poor nutrition (score >3). Although the level of risk was similar between the two bereaved groups, it was significantly different from those in coupled relationships, who had the lowest risk (1.43). Based on the interviews, the dietary issues included: 1) food acquisition, preparation and consumption; 2) difficult meals place and time; 3) influence of social network/spouse; and 4) food and nutrition information. The food-related issues faced by bereaved individuals were similar, but substantially different from those in coupled relationships. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that bereavement counseling does not serve as a gateway to reduced nutritional risk and highlights the need to address food issues in grief resolution interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".