MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408155134 · doi:10.3390/rel16030321

The Role of Threat, Meaning, and Religion in Political Grief

2025· article· en· W4408155134 on OpenAlexaff
Darcy L. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueReligions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefMeaning (existential)PoliticsPsychoanalysisTraumatic griefPsychologySociologyEpistemologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPhilosophyPsychotherapistLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grief is often seen as a personal response to losing a loved one, but it can also arise from the loss of deeply held values and identities linked to social, structural, and religious spheres. Political grief is a unique form of this, stemming from political policies, laws, and social messaging that certain groups perceive as losses. As societies face political decisions and systemic failures, grief can emerge from losing trust in institutions, shared beliefs, and a sense of belonging. An outgrowth of political grief is a strain on relationships due to polarization, heightened by threat-activating events and resulting tensions. Many people turn to religion to counter feelings of vulnerability and incoherence in today’s political climate. While this may relieve anxiety and provide stability, it can also exacerbate some sources of grief. Understanding these dimensions is crucial for addressing political grief’s broader implications, as individuals and communities seek meaning and attempt to rewrite their narratives in adversity. This discussion includes defining grief beyond death-loss and exploring the interplay between social/political structures and culture. It also considers specific threats and responses, including religious alignment, focusing on recent events in the United States.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReligionsSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207