Fearlessness about death and suicidality: does religious identity matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Religion is a salient aspect of patient background in treatment (Pargament, 1997). However, research investigating the role of religion in suicide is lacking and inconsistent (Gearing & Alonzo, 2018). The current study (1) clarifies the association between religious identity and fearlessness about death in a psychiatric sample and (2) tests whether religious identity moderates the association between fearlessness about death and suicidal ideation. Methods: Participants were 155 patients seeking treatment in a partial hospital program. Religious identity was assessed using the Identities in Treatment Scale (Hom et al., 2022). Fearlessness about death was assessed with two relevant items from the Acquired Capability With Rehearsal for Suicide Scale (George et al., 2016), as in prior studies (Shahnaz et al., 2020; Stewart et al., 2023).Results: Fearlessness about death interacted with religious identity to predict suicidal ideation, b = .47, 95% C.I. [.02, .91], p = .042. Conditional effects showed that greater fearlessness about death was associated with greater suicidal ideation among non-religious patients, b = -.56, 95% C.I. [-.88, -.24], p = .001, but not in religious patients, b = -.09, 95% C.I. [-.41, .22], p =.559.Conclusions: Our results suggest that fearlessness about death is a risk factor for suicidal ideation, but only among those who do not identify as religious. Results from this study inform theories of suicide and elucidate the influence of religious identity on likes among suicide risk factors and suicide-related outcomes.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".