MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396692692 · doi:10.1177/00302228241239698

Predictors of Complicated Grief During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Classified Analysis

2024· article· en· W4396692692 on OpenAlexafffund
Talia Morstead, Jason D. Rights, Nancy L. Sin, Anita DeLongis

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNeuroticismGriefPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Social supportProtective factorPsychologyComplicated griefClinical psychologyRisk factorMedicinePersonalityDiseasePsychiatryInternal medicinePsychotherapistSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic left many people grieving multiple deaths and at risk for developing symptoms of complicated grief (CG). The present study is a prospective examination of the role of neuroticism and social support in the development of CG symptoms. Findings from cross-classified multilevel models pointed to neuroticism as a risk factor for subsequent CG symptoms. Social support had a stress-buffering effect, emerging as a protective factor following the loss of a first degree relative. More recent loss and younger age of the deceased were both independently associated with heightened CG symptoms. Results from the present study provide insight into heterogeneity in CG symptom development at the between-person level, and variability in CG symptoms within individuals in response to different deaths. Findings could therefore aid in the identification of those at risk for the development of CG symptoms.

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)0.005
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOMEGA - Journal of Death and DyingSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207