Unconstrained, phonemic and semantic verbal fluency: age and education effects, norms and discrepancies
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
OBJECTIVE: To present performance norms and discrepancy score of three one-minute verbal fluency tasks (VFTs); to investigate age and education effects; to analyze the differences between time intervals; and to investigate whether these differences varied according to age and education. METHOD: Three hundred adults divided into three age groups (19-39; 40-59; 60-75) and two groups of educational level (2 to 7 years; 8 years or more) performed unconstrained, semantic, and phonemic VFTs. We compared the performance of the groups using two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni test. The depression scale score was covariate. The time interval of verbal fluency was the variable used for subjects' comparison (repeated measures ANOVA). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that there are age and education effects on phonemic and unconstrained VFTs. We also found an interaction between those variables in the semantic VFT (time intervals and total time) and in the differences between semantic and phonemic tasks. The repeated measures analysis revealed age effects on semantic VFTs and education effects on the phonemic and semantic VFTs. Such findings are relevant for clinical neuropsychology, contributing to avoid false-positive or false-negative interpretation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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