DO OLDER ADULTS BELIEVE THEY ARE AGING SUCCESSFULLY IN THE CIRCUMPOLAR NORTH?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract People’s perspectives on successful aging may impact their own aging outcomes. To gain more insight, we surveyed a convenience sample of 58 adults aged 55+ years in urban Alaska about their perceptions of their own aging using Fowler’s successful aging scale. Overall, older adults rated their aging in the middle of the 1-7 scale across all three questions: how well they are aging, how “successfully” they have aged up to now, and how they rate their lives these days (M=4.17, SD=1.16, range=1-7 where 1 = not at all successful and 7 = extremely successful). Correlational analyses indicated that as perceptions of successful aging increase, self-reported good general health (M=2.90, SD=1.00, range=1=5) increases, r(56)=.499, p<.001, and self-reported disability (M=0.71, SD=0.92, range=0-3) decreases, r(56)=-.27, p<.05. Despite a small sample size, these findings that perceptions of successful aging increased as general heath increased and self-reported disability decreased, suggest that participants may perceive successful aging and good general health to be positively correlated. Perceptions of successful aging were not related to age in this sample (M=71.98, SD=8.74), r(56)=.125, p=.349. This is promising, as it may indicate that older adults recognize good health and absence of disability as integral components for successful aging regardless of chronological age providing opportunities for targeted messaging in future interventions. Future work will explore opportunities to promote successful aging and overcome some of the challenges related to healthy aging in this urban location, including the Circumpolar environment, historical trauma of Indigenous peoples, and a lack of accessible healthcare across Alaska.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".