MAN’S SEARCH FOR MEANING…IN RETIREMENT: FINDINGS FROM THE MEANING-CENTERED MEN’S GROUP (MCMG) STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older men have the highest suicide rates worldwide, yet few interventions have been shown effective in reducing suicide risk in middle-age or older men (Lapierre et al., 2011). We developed and tested a novel, 12-session Meaning-Centered Men’s Group (MCMG) intervention with 100–120 cognitively-intact, community-residing men 55 years or older who were struggling to adjust to retirement, a transition associated for some with increased suicide risk. The intervention draws on research demonstrating negative associations of Meaning in Life (MIL) with depression and suicide ideation (Heisel & Flett, 2014, 2016), and aims to build camaraderie through group discussions about finding meaning in work, leisure, relationships, and generativity. This paper summarizes findings from this on-going study, including controlled analyses comparing MCMG with a current-events discussion group, and experiences disseminating MCMG to distant sites. Discussion will focus on helping men adjust meaningfully to retirement and preventing the onset or exacerbation of suicide ideation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".