MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Sense of Divine Control and Psychological Distress: Variations Across Race and Socioeconomic Status

2006· article· en· W2001886981 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Schieman, Tetyana Pudrovska, Leonard I. Pearlin, Christopher G. Ellison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Scientific Study of Religion · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReligiositySocioeconomic statusSense of controlRace (biology)PsychologyStressorAssociation (psychology)Social psychologyDistressDemographyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologySociologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines race and socioeconomic status (SES) differences in levels of the sense of divine control and its association with psychological distress. Using data from adults aged 65 and older in the District of Columbia and two adjoining counties in Maryland, we document that levels of the sense of divine control are highest among African Americans and individuals of low SES. Although the association between SES and perceived divine control is more negative among whites net of statistical adjustments for other indicators of religiosity and stressors, these conditions contribute modestly to the race × SES interaction effect. In addition, the sense of divine control is associated negatively with distress among low‐SES African Americans and positively with distress among low‐SES white elders. These patterns remain stable net of other forms of religiosity, an array of stressors, and the personal resources of the sense of mastery and self‐esteem. Our findings elaborate on social stratification differences in religiosity and their different associations with well‐being.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations170
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Scientific Study of ReligionSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207