MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084633121 · doi:10.1080/07481187.2012.692458

Type of Continuing Bonds Expression and Its Comforting Versus Distressing Nature: Implications for Adjustment Among Bereaved Mothers

2013· article· en· W2084633121 on OpenAlexaff
Nigel P. Field, Wendy Packman, Rama Ronen, Angeliki Pries, Betty Davies, Robyn Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueDeath Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistressingDistressPsychologyPsychosocialExpression (computer science)Developmental psychologyPerspective (graphical)Clinical psychologySpiritualityPsychotherapistMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated type of continuing bonds (CB) expression and its comforting versus distressing nature in relation to psychosocial adjustment among bereaved mothers. Twenty-eight mothers whose child had died within the previous five years participated in a CB interview in which they rated the extent they used each of 11 different types of CB expression during the past month and the degree to which they experienced each of the CB expressions as comforting and distressing. CB expressions involving illusions and hallucinations of the deceased child were predictive of greater distress whereas those involving belief that the deceased child was aware of the mother or communicating with her through dreams were not associated with symptoms, but instead linked to greater spirituality. Furthermore, mothers who reported CB as more comforting than distressing had lower symptom ratings. The implications of the findings for the attachment theory perspective on unresolved loss are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations64
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeath StudiesSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207