MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005420535 · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2008.12.003

Limitations to the deficit attenuation hypothesis: Aging and decision making

2009· article· en· W2005420535 on OpenAlexaff
M. Karl Healey, Lynn Hasher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsCognitionPsychologyCognitive psychologyCognitive agingLife spanWorking memoryNeuroscienceGerontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The deficit attenuation hypothesis is the proposal that age related declines in basic cognitive functions often result in compensatory changes in decision making strategies. However, the patterns of cognitive changes across the adult life span are complex: Many cognitive abilities change across the adult life span while others do not. Some of the cognitive changes will be detrimental to decision making, others will have no impact and still others may actually improve decision making. We illustrate the complexity of the impact of cognition on aging and decision making with examples from working and long‐term memory and use these to suggest boundary conditions for the deficit attenuation hypothesis.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.294
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.133 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer PsychologySame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207