MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130993440 · doi:10.1111/jopy.12134

Gratitude From Early Adulthood to Old Age

2014· article· en· W2130993440 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

VenueJournal of Personality · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsGratitudePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPerceptionInterpersonal communicationYoung adultPerspective (graphical)Interpersonal relationshipEarly adulthoodSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Are there age differences in gratitude from early adulthood to old age? The current studies tested several ways by which an association between age and dispositional gratitude may present, by considering multiple measures on both fronts. We used data from three cross-sectional studies (total N = 1,736; total age range: 19-94). The results indicated that (a) age effects in gratitude are more likely to occur for subjective age in terms of future time perspective (i.e., people's perceptions of their remaining opportunities and time) than chronological age; (b) chronological age effects are more domain specific than general in nature; and (c) they are more likely to occur for the instrumental domain as compared to the interpersonal domain. Finally, the results indicated that (d) perceived future time, particularly with respect to remaining opportunities, mediates the relation between chronological age and general gratitude. Overall, the findings suggest that gratitude is subject to a variety of developmental influences across adulthood.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.302 · 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