Divine Relations as a Basis of Subjective Social Status During Later‐Life: Direct and Moderating Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Early social theorists, including W.E.B Du Bois, recognized the importance of religion and its links to inequality, particularly in how religious vocabularies are attuned to frictions with inimical concrete social and political realities. We apply these ideas to research on the intersection of religious beliefs and economic deprivation, examining how beliefs in divine relations not only structure subjective social status (SSS), but also the association between financial stress and SSS. Analyses of data from the Caregiving, Aging, and Financial Experiences Study—a national study of Canadian older adults ( N = 4010)—show that financial strain is associated with lower SSS, but better divine relations (higher support from a divine power and lower troubled relationships with a higher power) benefit SSS. Divine support also attenuates the association between financial strain and SSS. This research suggests a Du Bosian “double consciousness,” in which relations with a divine power serve as a basis for individual conceptualizations of social status that run counter to predominant narratives based on economic standing. We suggest directions for future research to explore the nuances of SSS within the religious context informed by a Du Boisian mode of inquiry.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".