Psychological and Physiological Responses following Repeated Peer Death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Undergraduates at a university in the United States were exposed - directly and indirectly - to 14 peer deaths during one academic year. We examined how individual and social factors were associated with psychological (e.g., anxiety, depression, somatization) and physiological (i.e., cortisol) distress responses following this unexpected and repeated experience with loss. METHOD: Two to three months after the final peer death, respondents (N = 122, 61% female, 18-23 years, M = 20.13, SD = 1.14) reported prior adverse experiences, degree of closeness with the deceased, acute responses to the peer deaths, ongoing distress responses, social support, support seeking, and media viewing. A subset (n = 24) returned hair samples for evaluation of cortisol responses during the previous 3 months. RESULTS: Ongoing psychological distress was associated with a) prior interpersonal trauma, b) fewer social supports, and c) media exposure to news of the deaths (p's<.05). Participants who had no prior bereavements showed, on average, high cortisol (>25 p/mg) compared to individuals with one or two prior bereavement experiences (who were, on average, within the normal range, 10 to 25 p/mg) (p<.05). Only 8% of the sample utilized available university psychological or physical health resources and support groups. CONCLUSIONS: Limited research has examined the psychological and physiological impact of exposure to chronic, repeated peer loss, despite the fact that there are groups of individuals (e.g., police, military soldiers) that routinely face such exposures. Prior adversity appears to play a role in shaping psychological and physiological responses to repeated loss. This topic warrants further research given the health implications of repeated loss for individuals in high-risk occupations and university settings.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".