MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004599222 · doi:10.1159/000357671

Biobehavioral Pathways Underlying Spousal Health Dynamics: Its Nature, Correlates, and Consequences

2014· review· en· W2004599222 on OpenAlexafffund
Christiane A. Hoppmann, Denis Gerstorf

Bibliographic record

VenueGerontology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanada Research ChairsMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsPsychologyMechanism (biology)Mental healthDynamics (music)Physical healthFocus (optics)Developmental psychologyGerontologyMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marriage is a very special relationship that has a high potential to influence physical and mental health throughout the adult lifespan and into old age. In this viewpoint, we propose a model that outlines plausible biobehavioral pathways that may underlie previously established spousal interrelations in long-term health trajectories and discuss specific resources that may facilitate favorable outcomes for everyone involved. Specifically, we focus on spousal associations in physical activity as an important health behavior and in stress-related processes as a key daily-life mechanism, which both reveal effects that may accumulate over time to impact longer-term health outcomes. We also consider spousal resources such as collaborative problem solving and joint goals as psychological variables that characterize the dynamics within a given marriage. We conclude by discussing areas in theory and research that are ripe for further consideration and lay out target questions for future inquiry.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerontologySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207