MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033937661 · doi:10.1177/1066480720929360

The Widowhood Effect: Explaining the Adverse Outcomes After Spousal Loss Using Physiological Stress Theories, Marital Quality, and Attachment

2020· article· en· W3033937661 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

VenueThe Family Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverse effectPsychologyQuality of life (healthcare)CLARITYStress (linguistics)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyGerontologyMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The loss of a loved one is one of the most ubiquitous life experiences. There have been multiple reviews that have found adverse health outcomes for individuals experiencing spousal loss, particularly the widowhood effect that characterizes an increased risk of mortality after loss. However, there is a lack of clarity on the relationship between physiological stress and the widowhood effect. This commentary uses the literature on stress, marital quality, and attachment to explain the widowhood effect and other adverse physical health outcomes. We discuss three points: (1) the chronic nature of stress may be the source of adverse outcomes, (2) the quality and quantity of available resources may moderate the effects of stress, and (3) the level and style of attachment may explain why these outcomes may persist many years after spousal loss.

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)0.002
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.317 · 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