MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062739044 · doi:10.1177/002193470203300104

Patterns of Informal Support from Family and Church Members among African Americans

2002· article· en· W2062739044 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda M. Chatters, Robert Joseph Taylor, Karen D. Lincoln, Tracy Schroepfer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Black Studies · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClosenessMarital statusPsychologyMultinomial logistic regressionChurch attendanceFamily supportDemographyQuarter (Canadian coin)Logistic regressionSocial psychologySociologyGeographyMedicineReligiosityPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article investigates sociodemographic and family and church factors as correlates of support from family and church members among a representative sample of African Americans. Overall patterns of family and church support indicate that slightly more than half of respondents receive assistance from both family and church networks, one quarter receive assistance from family only, and roughly equal percentages (9%) receive help from either church members only or do not receive help from either group. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to examine sociodemo graphic (i.e., age, marital status, gender, region, education, income, and urbanicity) and family and church factors (i.e., family closeness, family contact, parental status, and church participation) as predictors of specific patterns and sources of support. The findings indicated significant age, gender, and marital and parental status differences in patterns of support from family and church. Perceptions of family closeness, degree of interaction with family, and overall levels of participation in church activities were associated with distinctive patterns of assistance.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations147
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Black StudiesSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207