Bilinguismo como um fator de proteção contra o envelhecimento cognitivo relacionado à idade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El control atencional de los bilingues les permite utilizar ambos lenguajes de forma alternante minimizando las intrusiones de una lengua en la otra. En el presente trabajo se revisan de forma exhaustiva las evidencias que han puesto de manifiesto tanto una mayor capacidad de control cognitivo en sujetos bilingues, en especial en personas mayores, como su implicacion en el declive cognitivo asociado a la edad. Para ello se reportan resultados de estudios conductuales y de neuroimagen, los cuales han empleado diversos paradigmas que implican resolucion de la interferencia, entre otros. Posteriormente se establece un vinculo con la teoria de la reserva cognitiva, se discute el escaso protagonismo del bilinguismo en los modelos sobre envejecimiento cognitivo y se perfilan futuros campos de estudio y nuevas variables a considerar. Dado el creciente interes en la relacion entre la funcion cognitiva y el cambio neural, se proponen los candidatos neurales que podrian dar cuenta de la “ventaja bilingue”, en especial en la capacidad de control de la interferencia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".