MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118857586 · doi:10.1177/0037768614560949

Race differences in acceptance of cremation: Religion, Durkheim, and death in the African American community

2015· article· en· W2118857586 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Compass · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReligiosityRace (biology)OppressionSociologyAfrican americanGender studiesEthnic groupSocial psychologyAnthropologyDemographyPsychologyPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research has demonstrated race differences in the acceptance and occurrence of cremation (International Cemetery and Funeral Association [ICFA], 2005). However, there has not been an attempt to explain these differences sociologically. Two phases of research were conducted to investigate race differences in the acceptance of cremation. In phase one, using a representative sample of university students at a university in the southern United States ( N=510), racial differences in the acceptance of cremation were examined. Quantitative results suggest that African Americans are less accepting of cremation than whites, yet the specific mechanisms that produce this difference remain unclear. In the second phase of this study, qualitative interviews ( N=17) were used to further investigate the robust race difference. African Americans report both social as well as religious reasons for greater adherence to traditional burial customs. Higher levels of cohesion and religiosity, combined with a history of oppression among African Americans, are considered within a Durkheimian framework as mechanisms that contribute to the difference in attitudes.

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.

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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.276 · 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