Grief and growth in bereaved siblings: Interactions between different sources of social support.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to characterize the relation between different sources of school-based social support (friends, peers, and teachers) and bereaved siblings' grief and grief-related growth and to examine whether nonparental sources of social support buffer the effects of low parent support on bereaved siblings. Families (N = 85) were recruited from cancer registries at 3 pediatric institutions 3-12 months after a child's death. Bereaved siblings were 8-18 years old (M = 12.39, SD = 2.65) and majority female (58%) and White (74%). During home visits, siblings reported their perceptions of social support from parental and nonparental sources using the Social Support Scale for Children, as well as grief and grief-related growth using the Hogan Sibling Inventory of Bereavement. Parent, friend, and teacher support were positively correlated with grief-related growth, whereas parent and peer support were negatively correlated with grief for adolescents. Teacher and friend support significantly moderated the association between parent support and grief such that teacher and friend support accentuated the positive effects of parent support. Friend and peer support moderated associations between parent support and grief/growth for adolescents but not children. School-based social support, namely from friends, peers, and teachers, appears to facilitate the adjustment of bereaved siblings. Findings suggest that bereaved siblings may benefit from enhanced support from teachers and friends regardless of age, with middle/high school students particularly benefitting from increased support from close friends and peers. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".