MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173740238 · doi:10.1177/08982643211029174

Homeownership and Psychological Resources Among Older Adults: Do Gender and Mortgage Status Moderate Homeownership Effects?

2021· article· en· W3173740238 on OpenAlexaff
Gum‐Ryeong Park, HyunJee Park, Jinho Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepressive symptomsPsychologyHealth and Retirement StudyGerontologyDemographyMedicinePsychiatryCognitionSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: This study examined whether homeownership is associated with life satisfaction and depressive symptoms among older adults aged 65 or over and whether these associations differ by gender. This study further distinguished mortgagors from owner-occupiers. Methods: Using six waves of the Korean Longitudinal Study of Ageing ( N = 3540), we used generalized estimating equations as well as random- and fixed-effects regression analyses. Results: Gender-stratified fixed-effects models showed that the associations between homeownership and psychological resources are largely driven by men. Owner-occupiers are more satisfied with life and report fewer depressive symptoms than renters. By contrast, although mortgagors are more satisfied with life than renters, they have depressive symptoms similar to those of renters. These patterns are more pronounced among men than women. Discussion: Our findings lend support to policies that promote affordable homeownership as a way to reduce social inequalities in psychological well-being and health, especially among older men.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and HealthSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207