MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915711329 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v11n1p26

The Relationship between Death Anxiety, Level of Optimism and Religiosity among Adult Cancer Patients: A Predictive Study

2019· article· en· W2915711329 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmad Attyea Ahmad, Osama Hasan Gaber

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOptimism, Hope, and Well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNajran University
KeywordsReligiosityOptimismPsychologyDeath anxietyAnxietyClinical psychologyScale (ratio)Fear of deathPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study aimed to examine the relationship between death anxiety, optimism and religiosity among cancer patients. The sample consisted of (42) adults who were all suffering from cancer. Three main scales namely, death anxiety scale, optimism scale and religiosity scale were developed by the researcher and then used in the present study to collect data. Pearson Correlation Coefficient (-0.38) showed that the relationship between death anxiety and optimism was statistically significant. On the other hand, the relationship between death anxiety and religiosity was also statistically significant as Pearson Correlation Coefficient was (-0.34). Furthermore, regression and prediction coefficients (stepwise) showed that death anxiety could be predicted by optimism and religiosity. therefore the need for the preparation of programs for the counseling for cancer patients to reduce the death anxiety fells and increase their level of optimism.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicOptimism, Hope, and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207