Functions of reminiscence and the psychological well-being of young-old and older adults over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing cross-sectional research demonstrates an association between reminiscence functions and well-being in later life. The results of this study replicate and extend previous findings in separate participant samples above and below 70 years of age. Findings suggest a link between reminiscence functions and psychological well-being, and indirectly between reminiscence and well-being 16 months thereafter. Invariance analyses reveal few differences in association between reminiscence and well-being when young-old (n = 196) and older adults (n = 215) are compared. These findings suggest a direct positive association between self-positive reminiscence functions (identity, death preparation, and problem-solving) and a direct negative association between self-negative functions (boredom reduction, bitterness revival, and intimacy maintenance) and psychological well-being (life satisfaction, depressive, and anxiety symptoms). In contrast, prosocial reminiscence functions (conversation, teach/inform others) appear to have an indirect association with well-being (i.e., via self-positive and self-negative functions). These findings are discussed relative to evolving theory and research linking cognition and health.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".