MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893727677 · doi:10.1007/s10902-018-0032-x

Perceived Religious Discrimination, Religiosity, and Life Satisfaction

2018· article· en· W2893727677 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Happiness Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsStatistics CanadaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReligiosityLife satisfactionPsychologyReligious discriminationPositive psychologySocial psychologyQuality of Life ResearchReligious lifePublic healthTheologyReligious studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a large national representative survey, this study examines the effect of perceived religious discrimination, religiosity, and their interaction on life satisfaction. The results show that the negative effect of religious discrimination on life satisfaction is large and equivalent to the effects of some major life events such as widowhood and unemployment. Higher religiosity is associated with higher levels of life satisfaction and tends to mitigate the negative effect of experiencing religious discrimination. Furthermore, although the prevalence of perceived religious discrimination varies across major religious faiths, its negative effect on life satisfaction is generally consistent. The implications of the findings for future research and theoretical development on religious discrimination and its associations with subjective well-being are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.326 · 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