MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984501286 · doi:10.5093/tr2013a8

The push and pull factors related to early retirees’ mental health status: A comparative study between Italy and Spain

2013· article· es· W1984501286 on OpenAlexaff
Alessia Negrini, Chiara Panari, Silvia Simbula, Carlos María Alcover de la Hera

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsInstitut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail
FundersUniversidad Rey Juan CarlosUniversità di Bologna
KeywordsMental healthPsychosocialPsychologySample (material)GerontologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, early retirement has attracted increasing attention in the literature. Using a larger Italian-Spanish sample, this study examines the push and pull factors related to early retirees' mental health status, as well as the moderating effects of perceived self-efficacy on the relationships between reasons for early retirement and mental health. Analyses revealed that poor retirees' mental health is positively correlated to the push factor Pressure from Employer and negatively related to the pull factor Pursue Own Interests. Thus, mental health status is better for Italian retirees than for their Spanish counterparts. The Italian sample shows that Pursue Own Interests was negatively related to poorer mental health particularly under the low self-efficacy condition. Findings suggest that mental health depends on both the motivating reasons that lead people to retire early and the personal resources available to them to manage this psychosocial transition.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Work and Organizational PsychologySame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207