Control striving in older adults with serious health problems: A 9-year longitudinal study of survival, health, and well-being.
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
The present longitudinal study of 143 older adults (73-98 years) with serious health problems (arthritis, heart disease, heart attack, stroke) examined the effects of goal engagement, disengagement, and self-protection control strategies on self-rated physical health (condition severity, functional status) and subjective well-being (life satisfaction) at 5 years and survival at 9 years. Main effects and interactions between strategy use and the occurrence of an acute vascular event (no, yes) as well as age (young-old vs. old-old) were assessed. As hypothesized, goal engagement predicted greater survival for individuals with acute conditions but poorer physical health for those with chronic conditions and among old-old adults. In contrast, goal disengagement predicted poorer physical health for those with acute conditions but better health for individuals with chronic conditions and old-old adults. Self-protective strategies (positive reappraisal) predicted greater survival, health, and subjective well-being for those with acute conditions, as well as better physical health for old-old adults.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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