MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024455888 · doi:10.1093/heapro/daaa046

Distinguishing between spiritual health and religious involvement as determinants of adolescent health in Canada and the Czech Republic

2020· article· en· W3024455888 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ivo Jirásek, Petr Baďura, Nathan King, William Pickett, Valerie Michaelson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion International · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsReligiositySpiritual HealthCzechAdolescent healthMedicinePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologySocial psychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spiritual health is a topic of emergent interest; however, lack of a clear distinction between spiritual health and religious involvement makes it difficult to understand the potential role of spiritual health as a determinant of health. Analyses of such relationships that cross countries and cultures are rare. We therefore assessed whether differences exist between spiritual health and religious involvement and their respective associations with general indicators adolescent health. The study was based on the 2013/2014 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study conducted in Canada (n = 10 761) and the Czech Republic (n = 4411). In both countries, we failed to identify strong or statistically significant associations between self-reported religiosity and adolescent health. In contrast, adolescents with higher spiritual health scores consistently reported enhanced levels of general health status. Study findings point to the importance of a strong sense of spiritual health as a protective determinant of adolescent health, and raise questions about religious involvement as protective to adolescent health outcomes.

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 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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion InternationalSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207