MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069809486 · doi:10.2190/om.57.1.b

The Social Relations of Bereavement in the Caribbean

2008· review· en· W2069809486 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald Marshall, Patsy Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change, Adaptation, Migration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefEthnic groupAcculturationMulticulturalismMainstreamGender studiesSpiritualitySociologyCultural group selectionAnthropologyEthnologySocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOMEGA - Journal of Death and DyingSame topicClimate Change, Adaptation, MigrationFrench-language works237,207