MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158535246 · doi:10.1080/07448481.2021.1947298

A cross-sectional examination of sudden-death bereavement in university students

2021· article· en· W3158535246 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna Bhaskaran, Tracie O. Afifi, Jitender Sareen, Norah Vincent, James M. Bolton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American College Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefSuicidal ideationCoping (psychology)Sudden deathPopulationMental healthClinical psychologyPsychologyComplicated griefPsychiatryAnxietyLogistic regressionMedicineSuicide preventionPoison controlMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives The objective of this research was to determine the unique contributions of sudden death bereavement to the mental health of university students compared to non-sudden death bereaved university students. Methods: We surveyed 1047 bereaved university students (retention rate 92%) and compared the non-sudden death bereaved university student population to the sudden death bereaved university population on outcomes including mental health symptomatology, and complicated grief using logistic regressions. Results: Sixty two percent of the sample reported sudden death bereavement. There were no differences on measures of PTSD, generalized anxiety disorder, depression, suicidal ideation, and at-risk drinking behavior across types of bereavement. However, sudden death bereavement compared to general bereavement was associated with increased likelihood of complicated grief. Conclusions: Sudden death bereavement in university students is associated with elevated risk of complicated grief. These findings confirm previous research and provide more insight into the unique needs of university student coping with sudden 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.

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)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American College HealthSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207