The Relationship Between Engagement in Meaningful Activities and Quality of Life in Persons Disabled by Mental Illness
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A hypothesized relationship between engagement in meaningful activities and quality of life was tested for thirty-two individuals attending a community mental health agency's programs. They completed the Lehman Quality of Life Interview; the Derogatis Symptom Checklist-90-Revised, and the Engagement in Meaningful Activities Survey (EMAS), constructed for this study. It measures 12 facets of the meaningfulness of activities and includes some open-ended questions. Its test-retest reliability and Cronbach Alpha were .69 and .84, respectively. Participants were involved in a wide range of activities that were most lacking in providing appropriate challenge and a sense of control. Engagement in meaningful activities was significantly correlated with satisfaction with life as a whole (p < .05), but depression accounted for most of the variance. Some support is provided for the theorized value of meaningful activity engagement and recommends strategies to increase the meaningfulness of activities. Findings alert clinicians to the importance of treating depression.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it