Stress, Social Engagement and Psychological Well-Being in Institutional Settings: Evidence Based on the Minimum Data Set 2.0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ Alors qu'il existe une importante documentation sur la relation entre le stress, le soutien social et le bien-etrê chez les aîné(e)s vivant dans la communauté, peu d'études ont examiné la population des institutions. Cette étude a utilisé les données d'enquêtes pilotes du MDS 2.0 de trois hôpitaux ainsi que d'autres enquêtes reliées au bien-être psychologique. On a constaté que les patients les plus engagés socialement avaient tendance à afficher des niveaux plus élevés de bien-être et cette tendance était encore plus frappante chez ceux qui jouissaient d'un meilleur état de santé. La douleur était un prédicteur important de la réduction du bien-être. Étant donné que le MDS 2.0 fournit une approche complète à l'identification des problèmes sociaux, psychologiques et physiques et à leur réponse chez les aîné(e)s vivant en institution, il peut entraîner des effets importants sur le bien-être si on l'utilise à l'appui de la prise de décision et des interventions cliniques.
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 | 0.028 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".