Goal adjustment capacities and quality of life: A meta‐analytic review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis quantified associations between goal disengagement and goal reengagement capacities with individuals' quality of life (i.e., well-being and health). METHODS: Effect sizes (Fisher's Z'; N = 421) from 31 samples were coded on several characteristics (e.g., goal adjustment capacity, quality of life type/subtype, age, and depression risk status) and analyzed using meta-analytic random effects models. RESULTS: Goal disengagement (r = 0.08, p < 0.01) and goal reengagement (r = 0.19, p < 0.01) were associated with greater quality of life. While goal disengagement more strongly predicted negative (r = -0.12, p < 0.01) versus positive (r = 0.02, p = 0.37) indicators of well-being, goal reengagement was similarly associated with both (positive: r = 0.24, p < 0.01; negative: r = -0.17, p < 0.01). Finally, the association between goal disengagement and lower depressive symptoms (r = -0.11, p < 0.01) was reversed in samples at-risk for depression (r = 0.08, p = 0.01), and goal disengagement more strongly predicted quality of life in older samples (B = 0.003, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support theory on the self-regulatory functions of individuals' capacities to adjust to unattainable goals, document their distinct benefits, and identify key moderating factors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it