Is Transition in Living Arrangements Associated With Older Adults’ Life Satisfaction When Preference Is Considered?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In a longitudinal design, the objective is to investigate the association between transitions in living arrangements and life satisfaction with special consideration for preferred living arrangement, and to assess whether such associations are moderated by age among Chinese older adults. METHODS: Data were from 4 waves of the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey, 2005-2014. Living arrangement transitions (N = 12,654) distinguished coresidence with children and non-coresidence and matched preference. Random effect ordinal logistic models predicted life satisfaction by transitions in living arrangements between baseline and follow-up, transitions in matched living arrangement preferences between baseline and follow-up, and these transitions interacted with age at baseline, adjusting for life satisfaction at baseline. Predicted probabilities for the highest level of life satisfaction for several transition combinations were calculated and the difference was tested for significance. RESULTS: Although matching actual and preferred living arrangement transition is an important factor in determining life satisfaction, actual coresidence with children remains positively significant. Moreover, results show significant interaction effects of the two transitions with age: while the association of life satisfaction with consistent matching gradually declines into older ages, the association of life satisfaction with consistent coresidence increases with age. DISCUSSION: While preference-matched living arrangement is critical for life satisfaction, especially for the young-old, the role of coresidence becomes more prominent at very old ages when various needs are likely to arise. It is too early to dismiss the role of coresidence with children in the Chinese context.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".