REVIEW Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and its relation with quality of life: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to synthesise findings on the salutogenic concept, sense of coherence (SOC), and its correlation with quality of life (QoL). This study is descriptive and analytic, with a systematic integration of the contemporary knowledge base on the salutogenic research published in 1992–2003. This review includes 458 scientific publications and 13 doctoral theses on salutogenesis. In all, 32 papers had the main objective of investigating the relationship between SOC and QoL. This study is based on scientific publications in eight authorised databases, doctoral theses and available books. The SOC seems to have an impact on the QoL; the stronger the SOC, the better the QoL. Furthermore, longitudinal studies confirm the predictive validity of the SOC for a good QoL. The findings correspond to the core of the Ottawa Charter—that is, the process of enabling people to live a good life. Therefore, a certain possibility to modify and extend the health construct is becoming discernible, implicating a construct including salutogenesis and QoL. The SOC concept is a health resource, influencing QoL. See end of article for
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 | 0.012 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".