HAPPINESS IN CONVENTIONAL VERSUS RETIREMENT HOMES: IMPORTANCE OF THRIVING AND COMMUNITY INTEGRATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since aging sometimes implies a change in living environment, it is important to better understand happiness and associated factors such as thriving, social participation, community integration and ageism according to residential settings. This study aimed to compare the happiness of older women and men living in a conventional dwelling (CD) and in an independent living facility (ILF), and examined its associations with thriving, social participation, community integration and ageism (self-directed and discrimination). A cross-sectional survey was carried out on a random sample of 509 adults aged 75 and older living in DC and 470 in ILF. Regressions stratified by residential setting and gender examined associations between happiness, thriving and social participation, testing for the moderating effect of ageism and community integration. Participants were 81.3+/-5.3 on average, and two-thirds were women. Controlling for age, living situation and health, the happiness of older adults living in CD and ILF was similar (69.7+/-14.0 vs 68.8+/-18.4; p=0.262). Superior thriving was strongly associated with greater happiness, regardless of residential setting or gender. Higher social participation was associated with greater happiness among women in ILF. For both settings, self-directed ageism was associated with lesser happiness, but discrimination was associated with lesser happiness only in women living in ILF. Higher community integration was associated with greater happiness in both settings, except for men in ILF. According to these results, future studies should evaluate interventions aimed at facilitating thriving and reducing ageism may improve happiness of older adults.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".