MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404051453 · doi:10.1177/00302228241272505

Remembering the Dead: Shifting Forms of Commemoration and Immanent Understandings of Death in Obituaries

2024· article· en· W4404051453 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris Miller, Hannah McKillop, Sohini Ganguly

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFavouriteNewspaperHistoryEliteSocial relationshipGenealogyDemocratizationFear of deathSociologyLiteratureArtMedia studiesPsychologyPhilosophySocial psychologyPoliticsPsychoanalysisDemocracyPolitical scienceLawTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obituaries serve important social functions; they announce death, but more importantly, allow the living to shape how the dead are remembered. Originally reserved for the elite, a democratization of the format has led to obituaries becoming more common and more detailed over the past century. Changes in this genre interact with the rise of nonreligion. As declining affiliation complicates the relationship between death and religious structures, obituaries reveal a shift from transcendent to immanent life stances, reflected in patterns of death commemorations. Based on analysis of obituaries across six Canadian newspapers over the past 120 years, this paper explores the relationships, activities, and values people express through obituaries. We argue that the growing appearance of family members left behind, favourite hobbies, and community associations indicate changes in how death is understood. Death is increasingly commemorated by reflecting on the relationships that people form in life.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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