MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122366159 · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.20.4.657

Regret and quality of life across the adult life span: The influence of disengagement and available future goals.

2005· article· en· W2122366159 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

VenuePsychology and Aging · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsRegretDisengagement theoryPsychologyUndoingQuality of life (healthcare)UndoLife spanYoung adultGerontologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two studies examined the associations between life regrets and indicators of quality of life across the adult life span. Given that opportunities to undo regrets decline with age, regret intensity was expected to be inversely associated with subjective well-being and health among older adults. In addition, the research explored protective factors that have the potential to reduce older adults' regret intensity. It was suggested that being disengaged from undoing the consequences of regrets and having many future goals available may reduce older adults' intensity of regret and thereby contribute to a better quality of life. Across both studies, the findings demonstrate that older adults perceived reduced opportunities to undo the consequences of their regrets and that regret intensity predicted a reduced quality of life only among older adults. Furthermore, the findings support the adaptive value of disengagement and available future goals for managing life regrets in older adults.

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)0.002
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.355 · 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