Age Differences in Everyday Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Review.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors report a meta-analysis of age differences in everyday problem-solving/decision-making effectiveness (EPSE). Effect sizes were calculated to reflect 3 age group comparisons: old versus young, young versus middle-aged, and middle-aged versus old. Findings from the meta-analysis of 28 separate studies with an aggregate of 4,482 participants do not support theories of preserved EPSE in late adulthood. Although significant age differences of moderate magnitude persisted across methodological and theoretical domains, rating criteria (experimenter vs. participant) emerged as a significant moderator of the effect magnitude and direction. In addition, EPSE in older adults was bolstered when problem content was interpersonal and when samples were highly educated. Finally, the current results support the conceptual integration of findings from the everyday problem-solving and everyday decision-making literatures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it