RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONTEXT, IDENTITY NEGOTIATION, AND WELL-BEING IN RETIREMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retirement can be challenging, depending on myriad factors. The transition itself, in addition to the context in which it occurs – such as whether retirement is planned or unplanned - may lead some older adults to renegotiate their identities (Whitbourne & Skultety, 2006). Moreover, retirement and its associated psychosocial response can ultimately affect retirees’ well-being (Wang & Hesketh, 2012), whether assessed as hedonic or eudaimonic. The current study examines the relationship between identity processes (assimilation, accommodation, balance), planned/unplanned retirement, activity participation, and four types of well-being (meaning in life; activity-linked positive and negative affect; life satisfaction) in a sample of retired Canadians (N = 124; Mage = 68). Preliminary results indicate that, while retirement context is important, identity processes are significantly associated with different types of well-being in different ways, thus highlighting the need to comprehensively measure context and individual differences in order to maximize well-being during retirement.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".