MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135700113 · doi:10.1353/cja.2005.0081

Personality, Cognitive Adaptation, and Marital Satisfaction as Predictors of Well-Being among Older Married Adults

2005· article· en· W2135700113 on OpenAlexaff
Norm O’Rourke

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPersonalityAdaptation (eye)Structural equation modelingCognitionSample (material)Psychological adaptationThe InternetMarital statusDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologySocial psychologyDemographyComputer sciencePsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study examines constructs that contribute to the well-being of an international sample of older married adults. A convenience sample of 208 participants was recruited through an Internet site as well as more traditional means such as newspaper advertisements and contact with community groups. The resulting structural equation model provides further support for the revised theory of cognitive adaptation. Within this model, the direct and indirect contributions of personality, marital satisfaction, and cognitive adaptation are examined in relation to wellbeing. Contrary to previous findings, personality appears to have an indirect effect upon both marital satisfaction and well-being. Cognitive adaptation, in contrast, has both a direct and indirect effect upon the well-being of older adults. Limitations of use of the Internet as a vehicle for data collection are considered as well as directions for future study.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207