Older Men's Lay Definitions of Successful Aging over Time: The Manitoba Follow-up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of "successful aging" has become widely accepted in gerontology, yet continues to have no common underlying definition. Researchers have increasingly looked to older individuals for their lay definitions of successful aging. The present analysis is based on responses to five questionnaires administered to surviving participants of the male Manitoba Follow-up Study cohort (www.mfus.ca) in 1996, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 (n = 2,043 men were alive at a mean age of 78 years in 1996). One question on each survey asked: "What is YOUR definition of successful aging?" Applying content analysis to the 5,898 narratives received over the 11 years, we developed a coding system encompassing 21 main themes and 86 sub-themes defining successful aging. We quantitatively analyzed trends in prevalence of themes of successful aging prospectively over time. Our findings empirically support colleagues' past suggestions to shift from defining successful aging in primarily biomedical terms, by taking lay views into account.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".