The Unique Contribution of Key Existential Factors to the Prediction of Psychological Well-Being of Older Adults Following Spousal Loss
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined the unique contribution of key existential factors to the prediction of psychological well-being of older adults following spousal loss. DESIGN AND METHOD: A number of measures to assess psychological well-being, sociodemographic standing, social resources, and religious and spiritual resources were administered to a volunteer sample of widows and widowers to test the hypothesis that existential factors such as personal meaning, religiosity, and spirituality are more potent predictors of psychological well-being than are previously hypothesized variables of sociodemographic, social support, and physical factors. RESULTS: A hierarchical regression analysis of the data supported the hypothesis that existential factors are major contributors to psychological well-being of older adults following spousal loss. Findings showed that widowers, compared to widows, scored lower on the measure of psychological well-being. IMPLICATIONS: Implications of the findings are discussed for practitioners working with bereaved spouses; suggestions for further research concerning bereavement and psychological well-being are made.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it