MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404192152 · doi:10.25236/fsst.2024.061002

The effect of social support on the subjective well-being of the elderly in the post-epidemic era: A chain mediation model

2024· article· en· W4404192152 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Frontiers of Society Science and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMediationPsychologyChain (unit)Social psychologySocial supportSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted to investigate the influence of perceived social support on subjective well-being and its relationship with meaning in life and resilience among elderly population in China. The Social Support Scale, the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, the Meaning in Life Questionnaire, and the Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness were employed. A total of 308 valid questionnaires were collected with a response rate of 100%. The data were analysed using SPSS 27.0. The results were as follows: (1) There were no significant differences in perceived social support, meaning in life, resilience, and subjective well-being by gender. However, significant differences were found in place of origin (urban/rural), socioeconomic status, educational level, marital status, and COVID-19 infection status; (2) Perceived social support, meaning in life, and resilience were positively and significantly correlated with subjective well-being; (3) Meaning in life and resilience mediated the relationship between perceived social support and subjective well-being. Overall, the subjective well-being of the elderly participants was in the medium to high range. Improving perceived social support, meaning in life, and resilience may enhance the well-being of elderly population in the aftermath of major crises such as epidemics.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Frontiers of Society Science and TechnologySame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207