MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200154111 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igab046.1516

Daily Financial Thoughts and Indices of Mental and Physical Health: The Importance of Socioeconomic Status

2021· article· en· W4200154111 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer R. Piazza, Jonathan Rush, Eric Cerino, Jacqueline Mogle, Robert S. Stawski, Susan T. Charles, David M. Almeida

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusPsychologyPhysical activityMental healthAffect (linguistics)Clinical psychologyFinanceDemographyMedicineEnvironmental healthPsychiatryPhysical therapyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The current study examined the associations between daily financial thoughts, socioeconomic status (SES), and indices of emotional (positive and negative affect (PA/NA)) and physical health (physical symptoms and cortisol). Participants (N = 782) from the National Study of Daily Experiences, a subsample of the Midlife in the United States Refresher survey, completed daily diary interviews and provided saliva samples, from which cortisol was assayed. Participants who, on average, reported more daily financial thoughts also reported more NA, less PA, more physical symptoms, and had higher cortisol AUCg (all p’s < .05). These effects were more pronounced among people reporting lower SES. Daily fluctuations in financial thoughts also predicted daily fluctuations in NA, PA, and physical symptoms (all p’s <. 01). Again, these associations were more pronounced among people reporting lower SES. Results indicate that intrusive, daily financial thoughts may be one pathway explaining the link between SES and health outcomes.

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)0.000
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207