Divine Compensation? Gender, Religiosity, and the Link Between Feeling Underpaid and Psychological Distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretical and empirical work within social psychology has highlighted the impact of the sense of distributive injustice —the evaluation of unfairness in the distribution of outcomes or rewards—and adverse mental health outcomes. Drawing on a sample of Canadian workers from the Canadian Work, Stress, and Health Study (CAN-WSH; N = 2,376), we consider whether three facets of religiosity—perceived divine control, religious attendance, and prayer—have stress buffering potency when it comes to perceived underpayment. We also test whether these associations vary by gender. Our results suggest that for men who reported being underpaid, higher levels of divine control were protective for psychological distress. By contrast, weekly religious attendance was a stress buffer for women who were underpaid. We draw from research at the intersection of sociology of religion and gender to interpret our findings. Taken as a whole, our findings underscore the importance of assessing religiously-based resources for individuals who perceive they are underpaid and speak to how understanding the effectiveness of coping resources, including those found within religious life, are contingent upon social status—a hallmark of the sociological tradition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".