Dyadic adjustment, sexuality and psychological distress in older couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following study gives results on the association between psychological distress and sexual and marital aspects from the Quebec Health Survey of Older Couples (Enquête sur la santé des aînés au Québec/Volet Couple). In this study, 508 francophone couples (508 women, 508 men), aged 65 years old and over, answered several questionnaires about psychological distress (e.g. Psychological Distress Index) and marital (e.g. Dyadic adjustment scale) and sexual aspects of their life (e.g. Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory, International Index of Erectile Function, Female Sexual Function Index). Participants answered general questions at home in the presence of an interviewer and they answered to specific questionnaires about their sexuality and marital life on a computer to ensure confidentiality. Results indicate that dyadic adjustment, sexual satisfaction and gender predict psychological distress and explain 14.2% of the variance of psychological distress among older couples. The same predictor variables were found in men and women considered separately. Moreover, participants with low marital functioning show more than twice as much psychological distress and poorer sexual functioning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".