Off-Target Verbosity, Everyday Competence, and Subjective Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Off-target verbosity (OTV), defined as prolific speech that is lacking in focus, is exhibited by relatively few older adults, but increases in prevalence with age. OBJECTIVE/METHODS: The hypothesis that a high level of OTV is associated with declining competence in other aspects of everyday life was examined in 142 older adults, previously screened for the level of OTV. Competence was assessed based on self-reported changes since age 50 years in quality and quantity of engagement in eleven domains of instrumental and voluntary activities of everyday life. RESULTS: Path models indicated that a high level of OTV was associated with a decreased competence in everyday activities and was indirectly linked, through competence, with lower well-being and greater loneliness. With competence level controlled, a high level of OTV directly predicted less loneliness. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the hypothesis that a high level of OTV is symptomatic of a more general decline in competence and of less successful aging. However, a high level of OTV also entails a strong motivation for talking to others and thus may offer protection against loneliness.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".