Does digital leisure relate to subjective well-being in later life? Examining roles of enjoyment, social support, and capitalisation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a rapid increase in use of information and communication technology (ICT) among older adults, benefits of ICT use become an important concern for research. ICT use is an opportunity to experience leisure in a new way for many older adults, also identified as digital leisure. Although digital leisure may facilitate subjective well-being (SWB), it is not clear in what specific mechanisms digital leisure relates positively to SWB in later life. To address this gap in the literature, we examined whether participation time, enjoyment, social support, and capitalisation (i.e. sharing positive life events with others) during digital leisure had positive correlations with SWB, measured by happiness and life satisfaction, among older adults. Data were collected from 351 participants aged 65 years old or older. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to analyse these data. Our results demonstrated that enjoyment, social support, and capitalisation during digital leisure correlated positively with SWB, whereas participation time did not. In addition, there was a significant interaction between social support and capitalisation. We discuss implications of these results in terms of fostering older adults’ SWB by facilitating their experiences of enjoyment, social support, and capitalisation through digital leisure.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it