Perinatal Loss and Parental Grief: The Challenge of Ambiguity and Disenfranchised Grief
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following perinatal loss, a type of ambiguous loss, bereaved couples struggle with and experience distress due to various forms of ambiguity. Moreover, the juxtaposition of their grief with society's minimization often disenfranchises them from traditional grieving processes. The purpose of this study was to explore sources of ambiguity and disenfranchised grief related to perinatal loss. Audio-taped interviews with 13 bereaved couples at 2, 6, and 13 months following the death of their fetus or infant were analyzed. Several categories of ambiguity and disenfranchised grief emerged, pertaining to: (a) the viability of the pregnancy; (b) the physical process of pregnancy loss; (c) making arrangements for the remains; and (d) sharing the news. This study uncovers the many sources of ambiguity and disenfranchised grief that bereaved couples face in interactions with family, friends, society, and healthcare professionals. These insights may inform healthcare professionals in their attempts to ease distress related to perinatal loss.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".