MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175682890 · doi:10.1080/15528030.2021.1938342

Is your religious involvement helping your mind? The link between religious involvement and cognitive function from the perspectives of Christian pastors and parishioners

2021· article· en· W3175682890 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shera Hosseini, Samantha B. Meyer, Mark Oremus

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion Spirituality & Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonprobability samplingPsychologyCognitionAttendanceQualitative researchSocial psychologyFunction (biology)MedicineSociologyPsychiatrySocial sciencePopulationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To obtain the perspectives of Christian pastors and parishioners on whether and how religious involvement may be related to cognitive functioning.Fifteen middle- and old-aged Christian pastors and parishioners from a metropolitan Canadian city participated in this qualitative descriptive study which involved purposive sampling and open-ended semi-structured interviews. The qualitative interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed.Participants expressed their thoughts on how religious involvements had allowed them to cope with stress, secure lasting and supportive relationships, and keep their minds active. All participants agreed that religious involvement extended beyond simple attendance.Religious involvement appears to be a significant contributor to the mental health of pastors and parishioners, potentially guarding their cognitive function against the negative impacts of stress. The findings have implications for the incorporation of individuals’ religious/ spiritual needs in their circle of care particularly for the elderly dealing with cognitive deterioration.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion Spirituality & AgingSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207