The Paradox of Well-Being and Holocaust Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Life satisfaction is a core component of well-being. Across age groups, satisfaction with life was found to be integral to individual mental and physical health. Surprisingly, there appears to be little or no association between age and life satisfaction. Recent longitudinal research suggests that life satisfaction may even increase in late life. This is known as the paradox of well-being. OBJECTIVE: To compare levels of life satisfaction reported by Israeli Holocaust survivors (HS) vis-à-vis other older Israelis and older Canadians. DESIGN: We interviewed 295 HS, 205 other older Israelis, and 335 older Canadians each of whom completed the Life Satisfaction Scale with items measuring both concurrent and retrospective aspects. Separate confirmatory factor analytic models were computed for each group. RESULTS: Overall, levels of life satisfaction were indistinguishable across groups. Both concurrent and retrospective items contributed significantly to measurement of a single latent construct. Yet differences between groups in the latent structure of response to certain scale items emerged. CONCLUSIONS: It may be that HS report high life satisfaction not despite, but because of, experiencing early life trauma, juxtaposing early years with the comparatively good conditions of their lives today.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".