The Social Relations of Bereavement in the Caribbean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this article are to discuss the various types of behaviors associated with grief and bereavement, and to examine the relationships, consequences, and outcomes of bereavement practices among the various religious and ethnic groups in the English-speaking Caribbean Islands of Jamaica, Trinidad, Grenada, and Barbados. The rituals associated with death and grief differs across cultures and is greatly influenced by religious beliefs and traditions. How these rituals are played out depend on the culture of origin and level of acculturation of the various groups into mainstream society. In the Caribbean region, expressions of grief represent religious and cultural traditions that may have a significant impact on social relations, particularly in multi-ethnic and multicultural societies. In the English-speaking Caribbean Islands of Jamaica, Trinidad, Grenada, and Barbados, mourning follows the patterns of traditional religious practices which have remained consistent over time. While families and friends may offer social support before and after burial or cremation, the social aspects of bereavement may also have implications for inter-group relations. Insights into bereavement practices and what it holds for ethnic and religious groups in contemporary Caribbean are presented.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".