VULNERABILITY, LIFE SATISFACTION, AND SOCIAL SUPPORT AMONG OLDER ADULTS: RESULTS FROM THE CLSA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When experiencing, at a specific moment, multidimensional difficulties (physiological, psychological, socioeconomic or social) increasing the probability of being harmed or having coping challenges that negatively impact their lives, individuals in situations of vulnerability are at risk of reduced life satisfaction. Although not demonstrated yet, social support may mitigate this impact in older adults. This study aimed to examine the associations between situations of vulnerability, life satisfaction and social support, as well as the moderating effect of social support on the association between situations of vulnerability and life satisfaction among older women and men. Secondary analyses of the cross-sectional data on 21,491 respondents aged ≥65 from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging were conducted, stratified by sex. Confirmatory factor analysis was used for identifying a latent vulnerability variable using physiological, psychological, socioeconomic and social indicators. Linear regression estimated the association between vulnerability and life satisfaction, and the moderating effect of social support. Respondents were aged between 65 and 89 (mean=73.4; standard deviation=5.8). For both sexes, reporting more depressive symptoms, chronic conditions and insufficient income best explained vulnerability, followed by dependence in basic activities of daily living, less social participation and living with fewer people. Vulnerability was associated with lower life satisfaction (p<0.001) for both sexes, and social support acted as a buffer against vulnerability (p<0.001) for women. Results confirm the multidimensionality of vulnerability. The buffering effect of social support in women reinforces recommendations concerning policies and interventions designed to increase opportunities of social connections, and further research is warranted for men.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".