MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001013414 · doi:10.1080/13674670903406096

“The Lord is my Shepherd”: examining spirituality as a protection against mental health problems in youth exposed to violence in Brazil

2010· article· en· W2001013414 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Huculak, John D. McLennan

Bibliographic record

VenueMental Health Religion & Culture · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsHeritage Medical Research ClinicUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityMental healthPsychologyPsychiatryCriminologyClinical psychologyMedicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intrinsic and institutional spirituality or religiosity may each provide unique protective effects against the negative impacts of stress on mental health. Whether this extends to adolescents exposed to high levels of community violence is unknown. Three hundred twenty-five incarcerated adolescents from Sao Paulo City, Brazil responded to questions about spirituality and violence exposure drawn from the Social and Health Assessment, and mental health problems drawn from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. There was some evidence that intrinsic and institutional spirituality/religiosity may buffer the relation between violence exposure and certain mental health problems, and that intrinsic spirituality may mediate the relationship between institutional activities and certain mental well-being outcomes. These findings extend a degree of support to the multi-dimensional nature of spirituality to high-risk youth populations, suggesting a small differential and interactive role that intrinsic and ins...

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)0.004
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMental Health Religion & CultureSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207