The Relationship between Religious Coping Strategies and Happiness with Meaning in Life in Blind People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was studying the relationship between religious coping strategies and happiness with meaning in life in blind people in Iran in 2015. This research was a Correlation study with sample size of 103 blind people (17 to 55 years) of Yazd in Iran, selected by convenience sampling method. Data were gathered by Islamic Coping Strategies Scale (ICSS), Oxford Happiness Inventory (OHI) and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ). SPSS-16 was used for analyzing data. Correlation coefficient results showed a positive significant correlation between religious coping strategies (Cognitive, Behavioral and Emotional) and happiness with meaning in life, also there was a positive significant correlation between religious coping strategies and happiness (p < 0.01). T-test showed that there was no significant difference between religious coping strategies, happiness and meaning in life in male and female blind people (p > 0.05). Stepwise regression showed that happiness, emotional, cognitive and behavioral subscales were respectively the strongest predictors for meaning in life. It can be concluded that religious and spirituality among blind people help them faced life's challenges more logically. This factor has an important role on increasing the levels of happiness and meaning in life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".