MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996742214 · doi:10.1080/02701960.2015.1005288

Student Expectations About Mental Health and Aging

2015· article· en· W1996742214 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michelle Pannor Silver, Natalie Warrick, Alaina Cyr

Bibliographic record

VenueGerontology & Geriatrics Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & Health
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsMental healthPsychologyAssociation (psychology)Successful agingStereotype (UML)GerontologyClinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing from stereotype embodiment theory this study contributes to existing literature by examining whether and how expectations regarding mental health and aging changed for students enrolled in an undergraduate gerontology course at a Canadian research university (N = 51). At the beginning and end of the course, data from an open-ended word association exercise and the Expectations Regarding Aging (ERA-12) survey was collected and later analyzed. Investigators used content analysis and quantization to examine the word association data and statistical tests to analyze the mental health subscale (ERA-MHS). Findings were integrated and presented in a convergence code matrix. Results show that overall participants had more favorable expectations over time; in particular, ERA-MHS scores indicated less favorable expectations at Time 1 (M = 48.86) than at Time 2 (M = 65.36) significant at p < .01, while terms like "successful aging" increased and terms like "depressed" decreased. Findings have implications for geriatric mental health competencies of students in the health professions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerontology & Geriatrics EducationSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207