MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380577442 · doi:10.1177/09567976231170560

Thinking Beyond COVID-19: How Has the Pandemic Impacted Future Time Horizons?

2023· article· en· W4380577442 on OpenAlexafffund
Samuel Fynes‐Clinton, Donna Rose Addis

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological and Temporal Perspectives Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSocioemotional selectivity theoryPsychologyPandemicPsychosocialCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Social isolationDepression (economics)Vulnerability (computing)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakGerontologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyDemographyPsychiatryMedicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older age is reportedly protective against the detrimental psychological impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, consistent with the theory that reduced future time extension (FTE) leads to prioritization of socioemotional well-being. We investigated whether depression severity and pandemic-related factors (regional severity, threat, social isolation) reduce FTE beyond chronological age and whether these relationships differ between younger and older adults. In May 2020, we recruited 248 adults (younger: 18-43 years, older: 55-80 years) from 13 industrialized nations. Multigroup path analysis found that depression severity was a better predictor of FTE than the reverse association in both age groups, suggesting an affective foreshortening of future time. In both age groups, older age was protective against depression severity, and younger age was associated with heightened vulnerability to the negative impacts of pandemic-related factors. Future research should consider the complex interrelationships between FTE, age, and depression severity and the potential impacts of the broader psychosocial milieu.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicPsychological and Temporal Perspectives ResearchFrench-language works237,207