MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553605869 · doi:10.1080/13825585.2016.1251549

Purpose in life and cognitive functioning in adulthood

2016· article· en· W2553605869 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan A. Lewis, Nicholas A. Turiano, Brennan R. Payne, Patrick L. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueAging Neuropsychology and Cognition · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health PromotionNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsModerationPsychologyCognitionCognitive skillExecutive functionsDevelopmental psychologyEpisodic memoryPsychological interventionEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performancePopulationAssociation (psychology)Clinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With an increasingly aging population, more work is needed to identify factors which may promote the maintenance of normal cognitive functioning. The current study tested the concurrent association between sense of purpose in life and the cognitive variables of episodic memory, executive functioning, and composite cognitive functioning in adults (N = 3489, Mage = 56.3 years, SD = 12.27, Range = 32–84 years) from the Midlife in the United States study (MIDUS). Correlational analyses suggested that purpose in life was associated with higher scores for memory, executive functioning, and overall cognition. Bootstrapping tests of moderation found no evidence for a moderating effect of age on purpose and the cognitive variables. Future studies should attempt to explain the mechanisms behind this relationship and explore the potential for interventions to promote healthy cognitive and purposeful aging.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations121
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging Neuropsychology and CognitionSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207