MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511874340 · doi:10.1007/s13644-016-0263-4

The Honeymoon is Over: Occupational Relocation and Changes in Mental Health among United Methodist Clergy

2016· article· en· W2511874340 on OpenAlexaffabout
David E. Eagle, Andrew Miles, Rae Jean Proeschold‐Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Religious Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDuke Endowment
KeywordsRelocationHoneymoonMental healthQuarter (Canadian coin)FeelingPsychologyMental distressDistressSocial psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryPolitical scienceLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study we examine how the process of relocation affects the mental health of United Methodist clergy and the extent to which relocation is associated with changes in clergy perception of the workplace environment and feelings of self-efficacy. We analyzed data from a longitudinal survey of 1375 clergy, one quarter of whom experienced a move between the baseline survey in 2008 and the follow-up survey 2 years later. Contrary to expectations, we find that mental distress decreased for those who recently moved compared to those who had moved 2 years prior. We also find strong evidence of a “honeymoon effect.” Recently relocated clergy report higher levels of self-efficacy and higher workplace morale compared to those who do not relocate. This study underscores the importance of examining the short and longer-term impact of moving on mental distress and presses scholars to consider the ways in which, under certain circumstances, relocation may improve mental health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.413 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Religious ResearchSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207