Not Just One Long Vacation: Revisiting the Importance of Lifestyle Planning in the Transition to Retirement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need to further understand the nature and role of planning for one's lifestyle in retirement. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine retirement planning and how it impacts perceived preparedness and satisfaction with the retirement transition, as well as to explore personal experiences of retirement. METHODS: = 748) fully or partly retired participated in an online survey that included quantitative questions about perceived retirement preparedness and satisfaction and open-ended questions about retirement goals, fears, challenges, and advice. FINDINGS: Results determined that while both financial and lifestyle planning were significant predictors of higher perceived preparedness, only lifestyle planning was a significant predictor for satisfaction. Overall, no gender differences were detected. Open-ended comments highlighted the importance of planning for one's lifestyle in retirement, including meaningful activities and social connections. DISCUSSION: Individualized career advising as well as group-based educational programs or peer-assisted learning initiatives appear warranted to support people in planning for their lifestyle in retirement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".