Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wellbeing as one of QOL in older people was discussed by using the findings previously obtained by our three epidemiological studies on older Japanese people.\nA characteristic analysis showed that older people of a D type who were stable and active for doing everything, took and consumed energy more than that of a B type, a reverse type of the D type. The older people of the D type had some vitamins and minerals more and going out more frequently than those of the B type as well.\nThe sufficiency of nutrient intakes by a family type and gender showed that the older people surveyed ate enough or more, particularly ate most in a family living with wife and husband (FLWH). However, the "wellbeing score" computed was lowest in its wife and highest in its husband. On the other hand, both men and women in a family \nliving together with a family of their child also had highest scores as similar as the men in FLWH, though they ate as slightly less as in FLWH. The lowest wellbeing \nscore in the FLWH women might be due perhaps to the stressors derived from many kinds of orders by their despotic husbands in FLWH.\nThe older Canadian-Japanese showed that some nutrient intakes were less than in the older Japanese living in Japan, and their health states were not so good as the \ncontrols living in Japan. Nonetheless they went out more frequently and actively for social and cultural events so on than the older people living in Japan, and they \nalmost felt happy and were satisfied with their daily lives, being a remarkably distinguished difference between both groups.\nThese findings suggest that enough or more dietary intakes do not necessarily contribute to "wellbeing". More than it, going out actively for taking part in social and cultural activities in a daily life may be important for improving wellbeing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".