MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738261877

Meaning and life and mastery mediate the relationship of negative reminiscence with psychological distress among depressed older adults

2011· article· en· W2738261877 on OpenAlexaff
J. Korte, Philippe Cappeliez, Ernst T. Bohlmeijer, Gerben J. Westerhof

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Twente Research Information · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReminiscenceBoredomPsychologyDistressMeaning (existential)AnxietyClinical psychologyMental healthDepression (economics)Life satisfactionPsychotherapistDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryCognitive psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To understand the adaptive value of reminiscence, a mediational structural equation model of reminiscence was tested in a sample of older adults with mild to moderate depressive symptoms. It was investigated if psychological resources (mastery, presence of meaning in life and search for meaning in life) mediated the relation between reminiscence (self-positive: identity and problem solving, and self-negative reminiscence: bitterness revival and boredom reduction) and psychological distress (depression and anxiety). Results showed that psychological resources fully mediated the relation between self-negative reminiscence and psychological distress. Specifically, self-negative reminiscing was related to decreased psychological distress through meaning in life and sense of mastery. This study contributes to current knowledge on the relation between reminiscence and mental health. It helps to understand better how reminiscence is related to psychological distress, especially in depressed older adults. Furthermore, the findings suggest the usefulness of focusing on strengthening psychological resources in therapeutic reminiscence-based strategies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Twente Research InformationSame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207