MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385422473 · doi:10.1177/10541373231191316

Are Mediators of Grief Reactions Better Predictors Than Risk Factors? A Study Testing the Role of Satisfaction With Rituals, Perceived Social Support, and Coping Strategies

2023· article· en· W4385422473 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jacques Cherblanc, Emmanuelle Zech, Susan Cadell, Isabelle Côté, Camille Boever, Manuel Fernández‐Alcántara, Christiane Bergeron‐Leclerc, Danielle Maltais, Geneviève Gauthier, Chantal Verdon, Josée Grenier, Chantale Simard

Bibliographic record

VenueIllness Crisis & Loss · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversity of WaterlooUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersMitacsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiUniversidad de Alicante
KeywordsPsychologySocial supportGriefCoping (psychology)Clinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study aimed to assess the mediating role of adjustment processes in known risk factors associated with prolonged grief disorder. Data were collected in March-April 2021 through an online survey of 542 Canadian adults bereaved since March 2020. The mediating role of satisfaction with funeral rituals, bereavement support, and coping strategies on grief outcomes was tested using structural equation modeling. Results showed that such adjustment processes played a significant role in the grief process and that they were better predictors than risk factors alone. Since they are more amenable determinants of grief reactions, they should be further studied using a longitudinal design.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIllness Crisis & LossSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207