MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109169798 · doi:10.5539/res.v12n4p43

Health Benefits of Staying Active After Retirement

2020· article· en· W3109169798 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hyun‐Sook Kang, Mihae Bae

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelephone surveyGerontologyPsychologyPhysical activityAerobic exerciseHealth and Retirement StudyHealth benefitsLife satisfactionHealthy agingMedicinePhysical therapySocial psychologyBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to examine the breadth and depth of relationships with retirement and health regarding older adults’ physical activities. In addition, the possible implication of the relationships is to examine better understanding of how to stay active after retirement. Data from the American Association of Retirement Persons (AARP, Montenegro, 2015) telephone survey were used, which sampled persons, age range was 60-89 years old (n=134). Result indicated that health and physical activity factors affected retired older life satisfaction. It is not surprising that retired older adults are less satisfied when they have decreased physical health, but more satisfied when they engage in diverse physical activities or exercise after retirement (USDHHS, 2018). Given that aerobic and muscle strengthening activities contributed to improving physical function and reducing the risk of falls (Chodzko-Zajko et al., 2009; Spark et al., 2018), this study also supported the findings that aerobic and muscle strengthening activities with relative intensity level positively influenced the satisfaction levels of participants (USDHHS, 2018).

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207