MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237770075 · doi:10.1093/geront/gnv193.01

LONG-TERM SERVICES AND SUPPORTS II BREAKING DOWN THE PALACE WALLS: FAMILY MEMBERS PERSPECTIVES OF COMMUNICATION IN ASSISTED LIVING

2015· article· en· W4237770075 on OpenAlexaff
Tamer Ahmed, G Karna, Afshin Vafaei, Emmanuelle Bélanger, Beatriz Alvarado, Marı́a Victoria Zunzunegui

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Gerontologist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)Architectural engineeringSociologyEngineeringPhysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

unclear. Significant benefits or consequences could be associated with involving others when faced with decisions or problems, especially in "high stakes" financial or health situations. The current study assesses whether self-sufficiency (e.g., "I would rather deal with my problems by myself") and advice seeking (e.g., "I like to get advice from others before making a decision") predict an objective health outcome, mortality risk. Participants were from the National Survey of Midlife in the United States (MIDUS; N = 6,116, 25-75 yrs, Mage = 46.38) with 564 participants identified as deceased over the 14-year follow-up period (2009 National Death Index report). A series of Cox proportional hazards models were estimated. After adjusting for age, gender, education, race, and marital status, self-sufficiency did not significantly predict mortality risk (HR = 0.93; CI = 0.85, 1.02). However, for every 1 unit increase in advice seeking there was a significant 12% reduction in the hazard of dying (HR = 0.88; CI = 0.82, 0.96). Further adjustment for health-related variables did not appreciably change the current findings. The implications for involving others when faced with decisions or problems will be discussed.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe GerontologistSame topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207