MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136663196 · doi:10.1037//0882-7974.16.2.351

Age differences in social preferences among Taiwanese and mainland Chinese: The role of perceived time.

2001· article· en· W2136663196 on OpenAlexaff
Helene H. Fung, Phillina Lai, Rita W. Y. Ng

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Aging · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsSocioemotional selectivity theoryPsychologyMainland ChinaMainlandExpectancy theoryDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyLife expectancySocial environmentSocial influenceDemographyChinaPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Socioemotional selectivity theory holds that as people recognize the inevitable constraint of time imposed by mortality, their social goals change, motivating them to limit social contacts to those with whom they are emotionally close. This theory was tested among Taiwanese and Mainland Chinese. As predicted, results showed that older adults (aged 60-90 years) in both cultures were more likely than younger adults (aged 18-30 years) to prefer familiar social partners who were most likely to provide emotionally close social interactions. Mainland Chinese, who as a group have shorter actuarial life expectancy, were more likely to prefer familiar social partners than were Taiwanese. These age and cultural differences were eliminated when differences in perceived time were statistically controlled for.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations130
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and AgingSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207