MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1514004815 · doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei0618

Cognitive Development in Adulthood

2003· other· en· W1514004815 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHandbook of Psychology · 2003
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionMetamemoryCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyAdult developmentEveryday lifeCognitive skillCognitive developmentCreativityCognitive scienceMetacognitionSocial psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The term, “cognitive aging,” is typically used to refer to the area of developmental psychology focusing on the study of cognitive changes from young adulthood to very late life. Among the developmental processes of interest are those that reflect cognitive functioning, such as intelligence, memory, and reasoning. An underlying assumption is that cognition is used in different ways to accomplish different goals throughout adulthood, but that it is always a central component of one's concept of self—past, present, and future—and one's adjustment to challenges of everyday life. This area of lifespan developmental research is a particularly active one, in that it is at the crossroads of both classic theoretical questions and important issues of individual and social application. In this chapter, we summarize selected leading issues in the field of cognitive aging. These include: (1) intelligence and patterns of intellectual aging, (2) differential profiles associated with the “aging” of various systems of memory, (3) new topics in such memory‐related domains as metamemory and social‐interactive memory, and (4) emerging research in such novel domains as wisdom, creativity, compensation, and plasticity. We conclude that, because cognitive aging involves developmental processes that range from the neurological through the individual to the social levels of analyses, it will continue for the foreseeable future to fascinate scholars and anyone else who is curious about how and why cognitive changes occur throughout adulthood.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.003

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.318 · 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