MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027676312 · doi:10.1177/0020715206062962

The Impact of Spousal Variables on Life Satisfaction of Individuals in Late Adulthood

2006· article· en· W2027676312 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liat Kulik

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife satisfactionPsychologyPersonalityBig Five personality traitsAnxietySimilarity (geometry)Clinical psychologyDemographySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine whether homogamy (similarity) in sociodemographic variables and personality traits in late adulthood is greater among couples characterized by high life satisfaction than among those characterized by low life satisfaction. The research sample included 256 participants (128 husbands and 128 wives) in Israel. The findings on homogamy in sociodemographic variables reveal no differences between participants in the ‘high’ and ‘low’ satisfaction groups. However, with regard to personality traits (self-esteem and anxiety), there are differences between participants in ‘high’ and ‘low’ satisfaction groups. In the high satisfaction group, the husbands (and the wives to some extent) have more similar personality traits than their counterparts in the low satisfaction group. In general, the findings reveal greater similarity in sociodemographic variables than in personality traits among the spouses. The findings also indicate that in late adulthood wives are less satisfied with life, have higher anxiety, and lower self-esteem than their husbands.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.406 · 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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207