MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159753492 · doi:10.1037/a0019389

Residential mobility, well-being, and mortality.

2010· article· en· W2159753492 on OpenAlexaff
Shigehiro Oishi, Ulrich Schimmack

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality and Social Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsAmgen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyExtraversion and introversionAssociation (psychology)Interpersonal relationshipInterpersonal communicationDemographyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPersonalityBig Five personality traits

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested the relation between residential mobility and well-being in a sample of 7,108 American adults who were followed for 10 years. The more residential moves participants had experienced as children, the lower the levels of well-being as adults. As predicted, however, the negative association between the number of residential moves and well-being was observed among introverts but not among extraverts. We further demonstrated that the negative association between residential mobility and well-being among introverts was explained by the relative lack of close social relationships. Finally, we found that introverts who had moved frequently as children were more likely to have died during the 10-year follow-up. Among extraverts, childhood residential mobility was unrelated to their mortality risk as adults. These findings indicate that residential moves can be a risk factor for introverts and that extraversion can be an interpersonal resource for social relationships and well-being in mobile societies.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Citations221
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality and Social PsychologySame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207