Situations of Vulnerability, Life Satisfaction, and Social Support of Older Women and Men: Results From the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Situations of vulnerability are associated with reduced life satisfaction. Although social support moderates the influence of situations of vulnerability, little is known about their associations. This study aimed to document situations of vulnerability and examine their association with life satisfaction among older adults, and the moderating effect of social support. Secondary analyses of cross-sectional data ( n = 21,491; 73.4 ± 0.04) from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging, stratified by sex. Confirmatory factor analysis identified a vulnerability variable from physiological, psychological, socioeconomic and social indicators. Regression models examined the associations. For both sexes, 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, and social support acted as a buffer against vulnerability. The buffering effect of social support reinforces recommendations concerning policies and interventions designed to increase networks.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".