MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070203497 · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.20.3.376

Age and Regulatory Focus Determine Preferences for Health-Related Role Models.

2005· article· en· W2070203497 on OpenAlexaff
Penelope Lockwood, Alison L. Chasteen, Carol M. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Aging · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyYoung adultHealth promotionRegulatory focus theoryDevelopmental psychologyLife spanPromotion (chess)GerontologySocial psychologyPublic healthMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors hypothesized that the effectiveness of role models varies across the adult life span because of differences in health-related regulatory orientations. Because young adults have strong health-related promotion orientations, they should be motivated by positive models who illustrate the benefits of good health. Because older adults have more balanced health-related promotion and prevention orientations, they should be motivated not only by positive models but also by negative models who illustrate the costs of poor health. Results indicated that both young and older adults perceived positive models to be motivating, but older adults found negative models to be more motivating than did young adults. Age differences in responses to negative models were partially mediated by differences in health-related prevention orientation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations94
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and AgingSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207