Subjective well-being in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current paper reviews measures of subjective psychological well-being in older adults and draws conclusions about how the concept of well-being is defined and measured. A systematic search of four databases identified eight measures developed to capture the notion of psychological well-being; the Positive And Negative Affect Schedule, the Life Satisfaction Index, the Bradburn Affect Balance Scale, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, the Perceived Well-Being Scale, the Scales of Psychological Well-Being, the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale, and the Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness. An evaluation of these measures revealed a range in dimensionality and composition, with measures defining well-being as primarily hedonic, eudaimonic, or a combination of the two. The validity of the measures was investigated by considering the extent to which measures capture facets of well-being identified by older people as important for successful aging. It was concluded that whilst all measures consider several important aspects of well-being, no measure captured the entire range of factors highlighted by older people as paramount to well-being.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".