MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080814161 · doi:10.1080/03610730252800201

Recall and Subjective Reactions to Speaking Styles: Does Age Matter?

2002· article· en· W2080814161 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

VenueExperimental Aging Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecallPsychologyYoung adultDevelopmental psychologyAudiologyCognitive psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eighty-four younger adults (M = 20.9 years), and 70 older adults (M = 71.1 years) watched a videotaped presentation of medication instructions presented in either neutral speech or elderspeak. Older adults, particularly those with higher working memory performance, tended to recall more information from the elderspeak version. Younger and older adults agreed in rating the elderspeak as having both positive and negative characteristics. Findings supported our hypothesis that the relationship between recall performance and positive subjective reactions to speaking styles would be stronger for older adults than for younger adults.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.264 · 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