MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031098478 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v5n1p112

Effects of Social Activities outside the Home on Life Satisfaction among Elderly People Living Alone

2013· article· en· W2031098478 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jun Nakahara

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHobbyLife satisfactionPsychologyStructural equation modelingActivities of daily livingGerontologyElderly peopleTest (biology)Unpaid workWork (physics)Social psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to test the following two hypotheses. First, the life satisfaction of the elderly is not directlyaffected by their resident status. Second, guided by activity theory and symbolic interaction theory, socialactivities outside the home (paid work, unpaid work, and hobby/leaning activity) have a greater effect on lifesatisfaction for elderly people living alone than those living with family members. Participants were 1,774elderly people who had participated in courses for the elderly to learn various topics, with a final study samplesize of 1,539 after flawed survey sheets were removed. T-test findings showed that resident status did not directlyinfluence life satisfaction. A multi-group structural equation model analysis verified that unpaid work has agreater effect on the life satisfaction of the elderly living alone than the one of elderly living alone. These resultssuggest that unpaid work acts as a buffer effect to decreased life satisfaction.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.413 · 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207