Living Well: Epistolary Messages to Young People as a Manifestation of the Generativity of the War Generation and the Baby Boomers of Poland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generativity can be understood as a conglomerate of psychosocial traits focused on concern for ensuring a good future for future generations. In a qualitative study based on an inductive analysis of 36 letters written by people aged 60-93, ways of expressing generativity through the transmission of experience, wisdom and concern for a good life to younger generations were identified. The analysis focuses on the intergenerational transmission of reflections and values regarding the “good life” to younger generations. Its goal is to sensitize them to issues relevant from the perspective of those at the end of their lives. The results of the study underscore that letters are a form of expression of generativity by older people. At the forefront of the message is the need to share wisdom and values that seniors consider essential to “living well” in the context of their own experience. The letters are dominated by reflections on the meaning of life, working on one's self and engagement in one's life, seeking joy in life, the importance of relationships with others, and the need to cultivate well-being and attentiveness to daily experiences.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".