MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092283894 · doi:10.2190/eu0d-j1b0-jkj0-ghmd

Constructing Symbolic Ancestry: Befriending Time, Confronting Death

2003· article· en· W2092283894 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ronald D. Lambert

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersLa Trobe University
KeywordsAfterlifeReligiosityGenealogyPedigree chartKinshipSociologyDemographySocial psychologyPsychologyHistoryAnthropologyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examines: a) the relationship between religious orientations and interest in the ancestral past; and b) the discursive practices of genealogists in dealing with time and death. Genealogy refers to the construction of family pedigrees in terms of births, marriages, and deaths, embellished with stories about the historic family and individual ancestors. Analyses are based on quantitative and qualitative data taken from personal interviews and surveys conducted in Canada (in 1994 and 1998) and Australia (in 1999). Multivariate analyses of national data failed to find effects for religiosity on passive or active interest in genealogy, but found significant negative effects for belief in an afterlife on both measures. Qualitative analyses of genealogists' accounts of their experiences in the pastime revealed symbolic and largely secular strategies designed to extend the time frame of their lives beyond their personal biographies, and to address the twin challenges posed by aging and death on the part of close family members and themselves.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOMEGA - Journal of Death and DyingSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207