Definition of Successful Aging by Elderly Canadian Males: The Manitoba Follow-Up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although the concept of successful aging is used widely in the field of gerontology, there is no agreed-on standard or common underlying definition for measuring success in aging. Our recent survey of an elderly male population asked respondents to define "successful aging." This paper describes the themes that evolved from those definitions, explores interrelationships between the themes, and examines the association between characteristics of respondents and the themes provided in their definition. DESIGN AND METHODS: The Manitoba Follow-up Study has followed a cohort of 3,983 World War II Royal Canadian Air Force male aircrew recruits since July 1, 1948. At a mean age of 78 years in 1996, the survivors were surveyed and asked, "What is your definition of successful aging?" and "Would you say you have aged successfully?" A content analysis identified themes emerging from their definitions. RESULTS: The most frequent of the 20 component themes from the definitions of successful aging as provided by 30% of the 1,771 respondents related to "health and disease"; "physical," "mental," and "social activity" were more likely to be found in a definition including "interest," "having goals," "family," or "diet," and they were less likely to be mentioned with themes of "independence" or "health." Many of the themes reflect an individual's attitudes toward life and the aging process. Current life satisfaction, self-rated health, and limitation in activities of daily living were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of reporting specific themes in definitions. IMPLICATIONS: As health care professionals adapt to the changing demographic composition of society, it should be of interest to understand what successful aging might mean to the elderly males to whom they are attending.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".