MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136865254 · doi:10.1177/00914150211001586

Older Canadians’ Identity and Well-Being in Retirement

2021· article· en· W3136865254 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicky J. Newton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Aging and Human Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIdentity (music)Health and Retirement StudyPsychologyPersonal identityBalance (ability)Life satisfactionAccommodationMeaning (existential)Retirement communitySocial psychologySuccessful agingGerontologySelf-conceptMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retirement can be a time of identity disruption for many older adults. Identity process theory (Whitbourne et al., 2002) states that age-related changes, such as retirement, can prompt an individual to incorporate new information about themselves into their personal identity using one of three identity process: assimilation, accommodation, and balance. Additionally, individual identity and the manner in which individuals retire-voluntary or involuntary-are associated with post-retirement well-being (Newton et al., 2018). The current study examined the relationship between identity processes, planned/unplanned retirement, and hedonic (life satisfaction) and eudaimonic (meaning in life) well-being in a sample of retired Canadians. Results indicated that identity accommodation and balance were associated with both types of post-retirement well-being, whereas unplanned retirement was consistently only related to life satisfaction. This study emphasizes the importance of including individual difference factors when examining older adults' well-being and the utility of measuring well-being in multiple ways.

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)0.000
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 score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Aging and Human DevelopmentSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207