MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063353159 · doi:10.1037/h0094049

The importance of music to seniors.

2002· article· en· W2063353159 on OpenAlexaffabout
Annabel J. Cohen, Betty A. Bailey, Thomy Nilsson

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychomusicology Music Mind and Brain · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine the significance of music in the lives of senior individuals, a short questionnaire was added to the protocol of the 2nd phase of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA2). Over 300 participants (mean age 78.3 years) from Prince Edward Island (N = 211) and Nova Scotia (N = 109) completed the questionnaire. Their ratings of the importance of music produced a modal response of the highest rating category. This judged level of importance of music was independent of age and mental status, as measured by the Modified Mini-Mental State Exam (3MS), but correlated with past and current involvement in music. Favorite music covered a broad range of styles, with period of popularity of the music weighted toward earlier rather than later decades of life. The same questionnaire was administered 2.5 years later to 93 CSHA2 seniors, including 78 individuals from the original sample. These results confirmed the previous observations. The importance of music to seniors, as shown here, raises questions about the optimum level of access to music by seniors. Increasing access to relevant music experiences, for example, through public broadcasting, or accessibility to choirs, instruments, training, and music therapists, may help maintain and augment quality of life in later 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations101
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychomusicology Music Mind and BrainSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207