Subjective well-being: gender differences in Holocaust survivors-specific and cross-national effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Subjective well-being (SWB) has become an important concept in evaluating older adults' quality of life. The cognitive and emotional evaluations which are used to appraise it differ in structure, characteristics, and effects on life. The purpose of this study was to support hypotheses regarding expected Holocaust survivors-specific effects and cross-cultural differences on three indicators of SWB. METHOD: We recruited samples of 50 male and female Israeli Holocaust survivors, other older Israelis, and older Canadians (N = 300) for allowing us to distinguish survivors-specific effects from cross-national differences. State anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life-satisfaction were compared across groups of men and women. Where univariate differences were detected, post hoc comparisons were computed to determine which of the groups significantly differed. RESULTS: In general, a higher level of SWB was found among Canadians in comparison to both comparative Israeli groups. Level of depressive symptoms was significantly higher among women survivors than in the other two groups. Both groups of Israeli women had higher scores on anxiety than Canadian Women; less apparent were differences across groups of men. Life-satisfaction did not differ among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings regarding depression support the survivor-specific effect hypothesis for women, and a national effect on anxiety, but not any effect on life-satisfaction. These findings suggest significant differences in impacts of traumatic life events on cognitive versus emotional indicators of SWB. This issue should be further investigated due to its practical implications in use of various measures of SWB with people who experienced traumatic events.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".