Mild memory deficits differentially affect 6-year changes in compensatory strategy use.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examined memory compensation techniques used by older adults from 2 memory status groups, not impaired control (NIC) and mild memory deficit (MMD), both at baseline and across a 6-year (3-wave) interval. The groups were derived from a parent sample of 55- to 85-year-old adults from the Victoria Longitudinal Study (NIC baseline, n = 276; memory > parent sample mean; MMD baseline, n = 79; memory > 1 standard deviation below parent sample mean). Multilevel modeling was used to test 3 research questions concerning differences in initial use of, and 6-year changes and variability in, memory compensation. Initial group differences were observed for both a memory compensation technique and a general compensation indicator. Significant differences in 6-year change patterns were observed for 2 memory compensation techniques (recruitment of human memory assistance, investment of extra effort in memory tasks). Interactions of group status and wave showed that older adults with MMD declined in their use of memory compensation strategies, whereas initially NIC older adults increased their use of compensatory techniques over the 6 years.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".