MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032364903 · doi:10.1177/0030222820927883

Is Death Taboo for Older Chinese Immigrants?

2020· article· en· W3032364903 on OpenAlexafffundabout
William Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTabooEuphemismImmigrationPsychologyMythologyMedicineHistorySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much of the scholarly literature sees death as a taboo topic for Chinese. To test this assumption, this study held seven focus groups in the Greater Toronto Area in 2017. It found that the majority of the older Chinese immigrant participants talked about death freely using either the word death or a euphemism. They talked about various issues including medical treatment and end-of-life care, medical assistance in dying, death preparation, and so on. A small number did not talk about death, but it seemed their reluctance was related to anxiety or discomfort or simply reflected a choice of words. The study concludes death as taboo could be a myth, at least for older Chinese immigrants.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOMEGA - Journal of Death and DyingSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207