Meaning of life, representation of death, and their association with psychological distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper presents a two-phase cross-sectional study aimed at examining the possible mitigating role of perceived meaning of life and representation of death on psychological distress, anxiety, and depression. METHOD: The first phase involved 219 healthy participants, while the second encompassed 30 cancer patients. Each participant completed the Personal Meaning Profile (PMP), the Testoni Death Representation Scale (TDRS), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Distress Thermometer (DT). The primary analyses comprised (1) correlation analyses between the overall scores of each of the instruments and (2) path analysis to assess the indirect effect of the PMP on DT score through anxiety and depression as determined by the HADS. RESULTS: The path analysis showed that the PMP was inversely correlated with depression and anxiety, which, in turn, mediated the effect on distress. Inverse correlations were found between several dimensions of the PMP, the DT, and the HADS-Anxiety and HADS-Depression subscales, in both healthy participants and cancer patients. Religious orientation (faith in God) was related to a stronger sense of meaning in life and the ontological representation of death as a passage, rather than annihilation. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Our findings support the hypothesis that participants who represent death as a passage and have a strong perception of the meaning of life tend to report lower levels of distress, anxiety, and depression. We recommend that perceived meaning of life and representation of death be more specifically examined in the cancer and palliative care settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".