Religiosity and Mental Health Service Utilization Among African-Americans
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
African-Americans are approximately half as likely as their white counterparts to use professional mental health services. High levels of religiosity among African-Americans may lend to a greater reliance on religious counseling and coping when facing a mental health problem. This study investigates the relationship between three dimensions of religiosity and professional mental health service utilization among a large (n = 3570), nationally representative sample of African-American adults. African-American adults who reported high levels of organizational and subjective religiosity were less likely than those with lower levels of religiosity to use professional mental health services. This inverse relationship was generally consistent across individuals with and without a diagnosable Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, anxiety, mood, or substance use disorder. No association was found between nonorganizational religiosity and professional mental health service use. Seeking professional mental health care may clash with sociocultural religious norms and values among African-Americans. Strategic efforts should be made to engage African-American clergy and religious communities in the conceptualization and delivery of mental health services.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it