Y a-t-il restructuration des stratégies adaptatives suite au veuvage? Une étude longitudinale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the changes in the coping strategies of older persons and the relationship between coping and mental health following widowhood. A subsample of a longitudinal study, composed of 32 subjects aged 65 years and over, was interviewed at home three times within a 24 month interval. These subjects had been widowed for 18 to 23 months at the third data collection period. Standardized questionnaires and ethnographic open-ended interviews were used as data collection methods. Non parametric statistics revealed no significant difference between the use of coping strategies by women before and after widowhood. The only change found for men was a significant increase in the use of formal social support from services after the loss of their partner. Content analysis of qualitative data suggests a pattern in the use of coping strategies following widowhood. Refraining, a cognitive strategy, was the only coping strategy positively associated with the mental health of spouses and widows. There was no significant difference in the strength of this relationship before and after widowhood. Refraining, a cognitive strategy, was the only coping strategy positively associated with the mental health of spouses and widows. There was no significant difference in the strength of this relationship before and after widowhood. These results suggest a stability in the repertoire of coping strategies in spite of the stressfulness of the situation of losing a lifelong partner and give credence, in part, to the notion of trait or style of coping. Results of this study also provide guidance for gerontological intervention.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".