MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149290408 · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbp128

Timing, Social Support, and the Effects of Physical Limitations on Psychological Distress in Late Life

2010· article· en· W2149290408 on OpenAlexaff
Arlene S. Bierman, D. Statland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series B · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute on AgingJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsSocial supportDistressPsychologyContext (archaeology)Psychological distressActivities of daily livingMental healthLife course approachSocial environmentLongitudinal studyGerontologyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyMedicinePsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Previous research shows that limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs) are related to greater psychological distress. This study uses a synthesis of life course and stress process perspectives to examine how social support resources and the timing of limitations intersect to shape the relationship between ADL limitations and changes in psychological distress. METHODS: Data are derived from a longitudinal study of adults aged 65 and older in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area over a 2-year period (2001-2003). RESULTS: ADL limitations are positively related to change in depressive symptoms. This relationship is weakened for older individuals, but only at higher levels of perceived social support. DISCUSSION: The contribution of this research is to offer a more nuanced view of the mental health consequences of physical limitations in late life by demonstrating that perceived social support provides an important context for age-variegated associations between ADL limitations and changes in psychological distress.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.410
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 teacher head, 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

Citations60
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series BSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207