Profiles of Reminiscence among Older Adults: Perceived Stress, Life Attitudes, and Personality Variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the present study was to identify subgroups of older participants on the basis of unique configurations of variables among functions of reminiscence, personality traits, life attitudes, and perceived stress by means of cluster analysis. Ninety-three older adults (M = 66.7 years of age) completed the NEO-Five Factor Inventory, the Life Attitude Profile-Revised, the Reminiscence Functions Scale, and the Psychological State of Stress Measure. Cluster membership was determined on the basis of intra-personal functions of reminiscence (Boredom Reduction, Death Preparation, Identity, Bitterness Revival). These groups were subsequently compared on personality traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience), life attitudes (Existential Vacuum, Goal Seeking), and perceived stress. Three distinct groupings emerged. A greater tendency to ruminate about negative memories and lower extraversion characterized the negative reminiscers. Higher frequency of reminiscence related to issues of identity, life meaning and death, together with a tendency toward openness to experience, typified the meaning seekers. Lower reminiscence frequency for each of the four functions, combined with lower perceived stress and neuroticism, characterized the infrequent reminiscers. These results are interpreted in terms of differential patterns of coping and adaptation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".