MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029497140 · doi:10.2190/ag.66.3.b

An Examination of the Relationship between Passion and Subjective Well-Being in Older Adults

2008· article· en· W2029497140 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Aging and Human Development · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionSubjective well-beingPsychologyWell-beingAffect (linguistics)Physical activityDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistHappiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Activity engagement has long been linked to improved subjective well-being (SWB) in old age. However, recent studies testing Vallerand et al.'s (2003) Dualistic Model of Passion suggest that the type of passionate activity that underlies activity engagement might influence the extent to which individuals benefit from an active lifestyle. In the present article we examined the relationship between harmonious and obsessive passionate activities and subjective well-being in older adults. Results showed that harmonious passion, through its influence on positive affect experienced during activity engagement, is associated with increases in SWB, whereas obsessive passion is associated with decreases in SWB. Engagement in passionate activities might be beneficial for older adults when a passionate activity is harmonious, but detrimental when a passionate activity is obsessive.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.287 · 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