MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008351287 · doi:10.1080/03601270701199065

Knowledge about Aging and Alzheimer Disease: A Comparison of Professional Caregivers and Noncaregivers

2007· article· en· W2008351287 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

VenueEducational Gerontology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseaseGerontologyIgnoranceAlzheimer's diseaseDementiaPsychologyTest (biology)MedicineHealthy agingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed professional caregivers of persons with Alzheimer disease (AD) and non-caregivers' knowledge about aging and AD. Participants completed modified versions of the Alzheimer Disease Knowledge Test and the multiple-choice version of the Facts on Aging Quiz #1. Overall, knowledge levels about AD and aging were low. Caregivers were found to be more knowledgeable about AD than were noncaregivers (58% and 42% correct, respectively), but these groups did not differ on knowledge about aging (40% and 39% correct, respectively). The most common misconceptions and areas of ignorance on the two tests demonstrate that participants rely on age stereotypes.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.381 · 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