MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117380002 · doi:10.1177/0192513x13482127

Is Marital Status a Critical Contingency in the Relationship Between Physical Limitations and Subjective Well-Being Among Japanese Adults?

2013· article· en· W2117380002 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Bierman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHappinessPsychologyMarital statusContingencySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyCollectivismWell-beingDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research demonstrates that physical limitations are related to lower levels of subjective well-being, but little research has examined whether marital status modifies this relationship, despite evidence showing that marital status is a substantial determinant of subjective well-being. Marital status is likely to be an especially important contingency in collectivistic cultures such as Japan, because cultural emphases heighten the importance of the marital partner as a resource when married individuals experience physical limitations. The current research uses a probability sample of Japanese adults to show that physical limitations are negatively related to both life satisfaction and happiness only among the nonmarried. Marriage obviates the association between limitations and subjective well-being by preventing losses in a sense of control. Furthermore, the married are protected regardless of the level of spousal support or strain, suggesting that the social integration function of marriage is pivotal in the creation of these protective effects.

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 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)0.004
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207