MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6910024479 · doi:10.3886/e151161v1-99120

Quality of life among older adults who are incarcerated: A gendered pathways perspective

2021· dataset· en· W6910024479 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueICPSR Data Holdings · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Quality of life (healthcare)Exploratory researchLife course approachQuality (philosophy)Marital status

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine gender differences in self-reported quality of life among older adults who are incarcerated (n=44). To examine the gender differences in quality of life among older adults who are incarcerated, secondary data were drawn from an earlier non-random, cross-sectional multiple methods study. Data here represent interview responses to select demographic and crime-related questions as well as the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cardiff Short Form (MQOL-CSF). We evaluated the mean differences of quality of life among men and women who are incarcerated, aged forty-eight to eighty-nine. Quality of life was assessed across a global measure and physical, psychological, and existential domains using the MQOL-CSF.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.237 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICPSR Data HoldingsFrench-language works237,207