MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942207517 · doi:10.1177/0898264319843445

Religiosity Dimensions and Disability-Free Life Expectancy in Taiwan

2019· article· en· W2942207517 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsReligiosityPsychologyLife expectancyExpectancy theoryGerontologySocial psychologyMedicineDemographySociologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Eight years of panel data are used to investigate the association between three dimensions of religiosity and total and disability-free life expectancy (TLE/DFLE) in Taiwan. Method: Data come from the 1999 “Taiwan Longitudinal Study on Aging” (TLSA; N = 4,440; Age 55+). Dimensions of religiosity are public, private, belief, and coping. Mortality is linked to a national database. Disability is activities of daily living (ADLs). TLE/DFLE estimates use the Stochastic Population Analysis for Complex Events (SPACE) software. Results: Those who engage in public and private religiosity live longer and more years disability-free than others, but proportion of life disability-free does not differ across levels of religiosity. Coping is less associated with TLE and DFLE. Coping however associates with more years disabled among men. Findings are robust to model specifications. Discussion: The way in which religiosity associates with health depends upon the definition. When it does associate, religiosity increases TLE and DFLE proportionately.

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.345 · 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