MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004869973 · doi:10.2190/ag.66.4.b

Age-Related Differences in Worry and Related Processes

2008· article· en· W2004869973 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Basevitz, Dolores Pushkar, June Chaikelson, Michael Conway, Connie Dalton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Aging and Human Development · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorryPsychologyYoung adultValue (mathematics)Developmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the hypothesis that older adults would show age-related reductions in the tendency to worry in both their retrospective accounts and through cross-sectional age comparisons with a sample of younger adults. We also sought to determine whether age differences would be evident in psychological processes associated with a tendency to worry in general adult samples (intolerance of uncertainty and beliefs in the functional value of worry). Support was found for the hypothesized age-related reduction in worry in both retrospective reports among the older adults and cross-sectional age comparisons. Older adults were also found to report less intolerance of uncertainty and less belief in the functional value of worrying compared to younger adults. These findings suggest that worry-proneness is reduced in late adulthood and that a greater ability to tolerate uncertainty in life and to see less value in worrying may partially account for this. Developmental and contextual changes that may account for these findings are considered.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 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

Citations125
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Aging and Human DevelopmentSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207