MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121011789 · doi:10.1093/geronb/63.3.s162

Negative Life Events and Age-Related Decline in Mastery: Are Older Adults More Vulnerable to the Control-Eroding Effect of Stress?

2008· article· en· W2121011789 on OpenAlexafffund
John Cairney, Neal Krause

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series B · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyGerontologyDemographyAssociation (psychology)Young adultDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to see if exposure to life events influences age-related decline in control. METHODS: The data came from a large, nationally representative sample of Canadians aged 18 and older (n = 17, 291). We examined the principal research question by testing for an interaction between age, life events, and mastery using linear regression, both cross-sectionally and over time. RESULTS: Similar to previous work, there was a nonlinear association between age and mastery. The data suggested that exposure to life events was associated with lower levels of perceived control at any age, but that the impact of stress exposure was stronger in older adults. This effect was also evident for change in mastery over time. DISCUSSION: The findings from this study suggest that exposure to life events is an important, yet overlooked, determinant of age-related decline in control. Loss of personal and social resources may be the reason older adults appear more vulnerable to the negative effects of stress.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations67
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series BSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207