MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050850886 · doi:10.1177/0002764201044005003

Loss and Meaning

2001· article· en· W2050850886 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Behavioral Scientist · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)PsychologySocial psychologyPersonalityDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People who have lost a loved one often try to make some meaning of their loss. The authors explore the ways people try to make meaning of loss, the factors that predict difficulty in making meaning, and the emotional outcomes of finding meaning. They also contrast the process of finding meaning with finding some benefit in the loss, even if meaning cannot be found. Our discussion centers on a study of 205 bereaved people who were interviewed before their loss and 1, 6, 13, and 18 months after their loss. The authors draw conclusions from this work not only for bereavement theories but also for general theories of adjustment in social and personality psychology.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.348 · 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