Conceptions of aging and beliefs about how one’s life is unfolding over time: A lifespan developmental perspective.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 15.30, range = 19-84 years; 56% female). Single-item and multi-item ratings of recollected past, current, and anticipated future life satisfaction were employed, along with subjective perceptions of change in life satisfaction over time. Person-centered (latent profile) analysis identified distinct linear and nonlinear patterns of beliefs concerning past-current and current-future changes in life satisfaction: improve-improve, stable-stable, worsen-worsen, and worsen-improve. Multiple facets of conceptions of aging were assessed, including subjective perceptions of age (chronological vs. felt and desired age); attitudes toward, experiences of, and expectations concerning aging; future time perspective; and goal orientations (growth, maintenance, prevention of losses). Multinomial logistic regression models identified unique facets of conceptions of aging characterizing the four profiles. In general, individuals reporting a distinct profile conveying the belief that one's life was improving (vs. worsening) over time were characterized by more positive conceptions of aging. Further, conceptions of aging partially explained the link between chronological age and the belief that one's life is getting worse and worse (vs. better and better). Thus, the present work provides new insights into how age and conceptions of aging may shape the directions and patterns with which individuals view their lives to be unfolding over time. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".