MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406148607 · doi:10.1177/01650254241310168

Giving back to the future: Generativity, future time perspective, and purpose

2025· article· en· W4406148607 on OpenAlexaff
K. Hill, Nathan A. Lewis, Laura Dewitte, Mathias Allemand, Patrick L. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological and Temporal Perspectives Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerativityPsychologyModerationPath analysis (statistics)Perspective (graphical)Association (psychology)Developmental psychologyFile Transfer ProtocolTime perspectiveSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research suggests that generativity may serve as a path to the experience of purpose in life. However, little is known about how this relationship is influenced by age and future time perspective (FTP). The present study aimed to investigate age and FTP as moderators of the association between generativity and sense of purpose. A total of 787 participants ranging in age from 19 to 94 years ( M = 50.23; SD = 16.47) completed self-report measures of generativity, FTP, and sense of purpose as part of a broader study. Correlational analyses revealed that generativity, age, and FTP were positively associated with a sense of purpose. Moderation analyses found that FTP, but not age, significantly moderated the relationship between generativity and sense of purpose. Specifically, individuals with a more limited FTP exhibited a stronger association between generativity and purpose. Findings lend support for a robust association between generativity and sense of purpose ( r = .54), and they suggest that generativity may be particularly important for sense of purpose when time is perceived as limited. This study paves the way for future research examining the role of FTP on the development of generativity across the lifespan.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicPsychological and Temporal Perspectives ResearchFrench-language works237,207