LESS IS MORE: COMPLEX VOLUNTEER JOBS AND MORE VOLUNTEERING ATTENUATE THE BENEFITS OF VOLUNTEERING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has identified higher cognitive functioning among seniors who held more cognitively or socially complex occupations. We tested the influence of occupational complexity and number of hours of volunteer work on cognitive, physical, and psychosocial benefits. A group of previously non-working and non-volunteering adults aged 56–86 were assessed prior to (n = 169), mid-way (n = 97), and after a year (n = 75) volunteering. Cognitive, physical, and psychosocial measures were related to demographic variables, time, and job characteristics with random-effects models. Younger and female participants had higher levels of cognition (verbal and visual episodic memory, working memory). Interestingly, cognitive improvement evident in the first six months was attenuated among volunteers working more hours or in more socially or physically complex roles. No changes were found in physical or psychosocial functioning. Cognitive improvement was found among new post-retirement volunteers – greater if not volunteering too much or in overly challenging roles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".