MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113084570 · doi:10.1093/geronb/61.4.p237

Empirical Validation of a Model of Reminiscence and Health in Later Life

2006· article· en· W2113084570 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series B · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReminiscenceBoredomPsychologyConversationMental healthLife satisfactionProsocial behaviorPhysical healthDistressDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapistCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addresses the adaptive value of functions of reminiscence with respect to physical and mental health in later life. A model examining the relationships between the functions of reminiscence and life satisfaction, psychiatric distress, and health is presented and tested. Self-positive (reminiscence for Identity, Death Preparation, and Problem Solving) and self-negative (reminiscence for Boredom Reduction, Bitterness Revival, and Intimacy Maintenance) functions have statistically significant and direct associations with the well-being of this sample of older adults, the first positively and the second negatively. Prosocial functions (reminiscence for Conversation, and to Teach-Inform Others) appear to have no direct link with health. Self-functions appear to have an important and lasting influence on physical and mental health, whereas prosocial functions may affect health by means of their role in emotional regulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.265 · 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