MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120797008 · doi:10.1177/0898264308324636

Exploring the Commonalities Between Adaptive Resources and Self-Enhancement in Older Adults' Comparative Judgments of Physical Activity

2008· article· en· W2120797008 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel S. Bailis, Judith G. Chipperfield, Raymond P. Perry, Nancy E. Newall, Tara L. Haynes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOptimism, Hope, and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOptimismPsychologyLife satisfactionSuccessful agingSelf-enhancementPerceived controlGerontologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. This study examines the extent to which optimism, control beliefs and motivation, and downward social comparison contribute independently to the maintenance of older adults positive self-evaluations in a functional domain. Method. Adaptive resources/strategies and life satisfaction were measured in personal interviews with 164 community-dwelling older adults. Participants judged their physical activity compared with the average person of their age and wore an accelerometer for 24 hours. Commonality analysis was used to estimate unique versus shared effects of the resource/strategy variables on a residual measure of self-enhancement, obtained by adjusting the comparative judgments for participants' age and objectively measured physical activity. Results. Self-enhancement was positively related to life satisfaction. Perceived control and optimism had shared positive effects on self-enhancement, whereas downward social comparison had a unique positive effect. Discussion. Self-enhancement of physical activity plays a part in at least two adaptive profiles with implications for older adults' well-being and health.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and HealthSame topicOptimism, Hope, and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207