Verbal Emotional Disclosure of Moral Injury in Holodomor Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. The purpose of the current research is to define and operationalize moral injury based on moral standards, moral judgements, moral reasoning, moral emotions, moral behaviour, and moral consequences; to explore verbal emotional disclosure of moral injury in Holodomor survivors’ narratives. Materials & Methods. The study applies traumatic narratives of 42 survivors of the Holodomor of 1932–1933 in Ukraine. Main themes aligned with morality structure were captured, using software tool NVivo.12. The study uses LIWC2015 to search for psychological meaningful categories, notably anxiety, anger, sadness, and insights (deep comprehension). The research uses the cross-sectional design utilizing the independent variables of anxiety, anger, insights and dependent variable of moral emotions represented in narratives for multiple linear regression analysis and correlations (2-tailed Pearson r) between components of morality, anxiety, sadness and insights, SPSS. 26. Results. There is a high frequency of moral judgements and a low frequency of moral emotions and moral consequences in the narratives. A significant positive correlation was found between moral standards and other components of morality, in particular moral judgements, moral reasoning, moral consequences, anxiety, sadness and insight. There was a significant positive correlation between moral emotions and anger, and insight. Anxiety, insights and anger taken together are significant predictors of moral emotions, however, only anger is a robust significant independent predictor of moral emotions. Conclusions. Verbal emotional disclosure of traumatic experience relates to expressing righteous anger, contempt, disgust, decreased empathy, and embarrassment, which substitute other moral emotions, notably shame and guilt. The study contributes to our understanding of anxiety, anger, insights (deep comprehension) taken together as robust predictors of moral emotions. Finally, we captured that there are difficulties in verbal emotional disclosure of experience and moral consequences of the Holodomor, since Holodomor survivors predominantly focus on moral judgements and moral standards.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".