MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220967914 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v14n2p1

The Phenomenon of Generational Cohort Differences in Life Satisfaction Reports

2022· article· en· W4220967914 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria Clara Kreis, Debra Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDuquesne UniversityLilly EndowmentEli Lilly and CompanyConrad N. Hilton Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyCohortLife satisfactionScale (ratio)Social psychologyPhenomenonMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subjective well-being within society continues to be a focus in psychology, especially during the COVID 19 pandemic. The Life Satisfaction Scale for Apostolic Women Religious (LSSAWR) is designed to assess, across generations and congregations, the subjective well-being of Catholic Sisters worldwide. Sisters completing the LSSAWR online get a personal score report, and each congregation receives their LSSAWR scores in a Congregational Report (CR). The anonymous and confidential nature of gathering and reporting results, allows for honest feedback from Sisters about the current state of their community, and it provides insights for the potential planning of their preferred future. Additionally, CRs offer generational cohort comparisons across and within the domains that are reflective of various aspects as related to religious life. A multilevel model to account for clustering of Sisters within congregations was used to examine whether generational differences existed in LSSAWR scores. Results revealed significantly higher scores among elder cohorts as compared to younger cohorts but some differences in patterns among domain scores.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207