MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129928101 · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbu089

Religious Attendance and Physiological Problems in Late Life

2014· article· en· W2129928101 on OpenAlexaff
Aniruddha Das, Stephanie A. Nairn

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series B · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNutrition Obesity Research Center, University of North Carolina
KeywordsAttendanceGerontologyPsychologyChurch attendanceReligious lifeDemographyMedicineSocial psychologySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study queried linkages of older adults' religious attendance with their physiological health. METHOD: Data were from the 2005-2006 National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project, nationally representative of U.S. adults aged 57-85 years. Analyses examined associations of religious attendance with biological states, potential gender variations in these linkages, and attenuation by this factor of health effects of spousal loss. RESULTS: Religious attendance was negatively associated with a system of physiological issues, consistent with mitigation of multisystemic "weathering." Linkages were relatively uniform with inflammatory and cardiovascular but not metabolic states and were not significantly different for women than men. Effects of spousal loss on the 2 former subsystems were attenuated by regular religious attendance-in combined-gender analysis and among women, but not men. DISCUSSION: Religious attendance may buffer older adults from physiological problems and the health effects of life events such as spousal loss. More intensive analysis is needed to explain differential linkages with specific biological subsystems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations30
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series BSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207