A Comparative Appraisal of Quality of Life (QOL) of Aged Living with Sons and Living with Daughters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was undertaken during 2006 for a comparative appraisal of quality of life of aged (65 years and above) living under two support systems, i.e. living with sons and living with daughters. The study was based upon the sample of 200 subjects from Ludhiana city, equally drawn from the two support systems. The sample drawn from each support system was further subdivided into two socio-economic groups which were further subdivided over two sexes. A Quality of Life Profile, Senior’s version prepared and published by Quality of Life Research Unit, University of Toronto, Canada (2000) was administered for comparative appraisal of Quality of Life (QOL) of the subjects under selected support systems. The results revealed significant differences in the quality of life of aged living under the two support systems. It was found that the aged living with sons had better Quality of Life. Also, the aged were found to have lower QOL for the other support system i.e. “Living with daughters”. Co-residence with sons was found to be the foremost choice of the aged irrespective of age, sex, marital status and education.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".