Cognitive discrepancies, motivation and subjective well-being in people with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research indicates that people with schizophrenia often achieve similar levels of subjective well-being (SWB) compared to healthy controls despite prominent symptomatology and significant functional difficulties. Furthermore, compared to healthy controls, young-adult people with schizophrenia differ in the relative importance they place on values, or guiding life principles, associated with educational and occupational success ( openness to change ), suggesting that changing motivations may contribute to SWB and the apparent motivational deficits commonly reported in this population. The current study sought to better understand these relationships in middle-aged people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder ( n =29) versus a relatively healthy group of community controls ( n =23). Participants completed measures of SWB and values. They also completed a cognitive battery and interviews concerned with mental and physical health. Patients reported similar levels of SWB compared to controls in the context of significant cognitive, social and vocational difficulties. Moreover, living consistently with values ( valued living ) predicted SWB in both groups. Lastly, internalized mental illness stigma was negatively associated with openness to change in the patient group. While encouraging from an emotional resiliency perspective, SWB and valued living in people with schizophrenia may hinder motivation towards treatment goals that could otherwise improve functional outcomes in this population.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".