MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165521593 · doi:10.1093/socrel/srab018

Jitters on the Eve of the Great Recession: Is the Belief in Divine Control a Protective Resource?

2021· article· en· W3165521593 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Upenieks, Scott Schieman, Alex Bierman

Bibliographic record

VenueSociology of Religion · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecessionStressorDepression (economics)Social psychologyPsychologyControl (management)Sense of controlJob strainOccupational stressFinancial crisisClinical psychologyPsychiatryEconomicsKeynesian economicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One factor that has received surprisingly little attention in understanding the mental health consequences of the 2007–2008 financial crisis is religion. In this study, we ask: what is the relationship between two economic stressors—job insecurity and financial strain—and depression? And how do changes in religious belief, indexed by the sense of divine control, moderate those relationships? We use two waves of the U.S. Work, Stress, and Health (US-WSH) project (2005–2007), which occurred on the eve of the Great Recession. Results suggest that increases in job insecurity and financial strain are associated with increased levels of depression. However, those associations are (1) buffered among individuals who simultaneously increased in the sense of divine control and (2) exacerbated among individuals who decreased in the sense of divine control. Moreover, the buffering and exacerbating effects of divine control are significantly stronger among workers with lower levels of education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations47
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociology of ReligionSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207