MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2900066337 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igy023.094

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH REMAINING FREE FROM FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS DESPITE SOCIOECONOMIC ADVERSITY

2018· article· en· W2900066337 on OpenAlexaff
Almar A. L. Kok, Mai Stafford, Theodore D. Cosco, Martijn Huisman, D.J.H. Deeg, Diana Kuh, Rachel Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusPsychosocialPsychological resiliencePsychologyMarital statusGerontologyClinical psychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthPsychiatryPopulationSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to identify factors that protect individuals exposed to lifelong socioeconomic adversity from developing functional limitations in old age. Data from 1,973 participants in the MRC National Survey of Health and Development (United Kingdom) were used. Functional Limitations was defined as experiencing difficulty with any daily activity. Socioeconomic adversity had three levels based on life course trajectories. We compared psychosocial factors and health-related behaviours between a “resilient” group (high adversity but no functional limitations) and five groups with other combinations of adversity and limitations. Compared to other individuals with high adversity, resilient individuals had higher adolescent self-management, a lower likelihood of smoking, obesity, and childhood illness, and were more often physically active. Marital status and contact frequency were not associated with resilience. Results suggest that a combination of psychological and behavioural characteristics across life is required to be physically resilient in the face of socioeconomic adversity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicResilience and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→