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 OpenAlexaff
Odette N. Gould, Cybil Saum, Jennifer Belter

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.149
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

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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental Aging ResearchSame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207