MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122942213 · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbp079

Testing Continuity and Activity Variables as Predictors of Positive and Negative Affect in Retirement

2009· article· en· W2122942213 on OpenAlexafffund
June Chaikelson, Michael Conway, Jamshid Etezadi, C. Giannopoulus, Karen Li, Carsten Wrosch

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series B · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study tested predictions based on continuity and activity theories, examining effects of continuity and change in activity parameters on positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA). Retired men and women (N = 368) completed measures of everyday activities and affect, repeating the measures after 2 years. Continuity of activity parameters and affect was dominant, although number of activities decreased and ability in activities and NA increased. Changes in activity predicted changes in affect across time. Increased activity frequency, ability, ease, and future intentions predicted higher PA, and increased ability and ease in activity predicted lower NA. Maintaining same levels in activity parameters usually resulted in maintained PA. The results were interpreted as providing some support for both theories.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series BSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207