MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sexuality and Quality of Life

2007· article· en· W164843993 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gerontological Nursing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaBroadcom (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarital statusHuman sexualityGerontologyQuality of life (healthcare)PsychologyPromotion (chess)Cross-sectional studyReproductive healthGerontological nursingMedicineNursingPopulationEnvironmental healthGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research was to explore the relationships between sexual activity and intimacy and quality of life (QOL) of older adults. The authors' research question was "To what extent do age, gender, marital status, health status, education, satisfaction with personal relationships, sexual activity, and satisfaction with intimacy explain older adults' ratings of QOL?" A secondary analysis was conducted using results from a cross-sectional survey. Data were available from a convenience sample of 426 individuals living in British Columbia, Canada, who volunteered to complete the questionnaire. Instruments included the WHOQOL-100, WHOQOL-OLD, and a demographic data sheet. It was found that the strongest contributors to the variance of overall QOL were satisfaction with personal relationships, followed by health status andsexual activity. Age, gender, marital status, and education were not significant. The implications for gerontological nurses include the need to support personal relationships for older adults, to encourage health promotion, and to ensure sexuality is discussed with older adults.

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.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.293 · 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