MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6943970897 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/4k2ax

Does self-rated health mediate the relationship between church attendance and other health outcomes?

2020· other· en· W6943970897 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttendanceChurch attendanceMediationLife satisfactionGeneral Social SurveyOrder (exchange)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Church attendance predicts satisfaction with life. Physical functioning also predicts satisfaction with life. However, in order to attend church, one must have at least some minimum of physical functioning. This raises the question of whether the relationship between church attendance and satisfaction with life is indirect and is a product of physical wellness. In other words, is the relationship between church attendance and satisfaction with life mediated by physical wellness. Using data from the 2014 Canadian General Social Survey, 2015 Canadian General Social Survey, and 2018 American General Social Survey we explored this mediation question.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.002

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207