Composing Meaningful Lives: Exceptional Women and Men at Age 50
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand divergent and remarkable lives lived, we examined the accomplishments, family dynamics, life orientation, psychological well-being, and definition of a meaningful life among two exceptional groups at age 50: Top Science, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics (STEM) doctoral students (270 males, 255 females, originally surveyed in their mid-20s) and profoundly gifted adolescents (263 males, 71 females, top 0.01% in ability, first studied at age 12). The creativity and occupational stature of both cohorts were extraordinary and commensurate. Life priorities, time allocation, and breadth of interests created paths that differed for women and men, resulting in contrasting, but equally exceptional, life outcomes across career, life, and relationship satisfaction. Distinct constellations of personal attributes of intellectually and scientifically brilliant women, relative to such men, operated to form satisfying and productive lives that differed for the women and men as a whole. Findings cast light on the participation of women and men in STEM and conceptually demanding leadership positions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".