Normative Data for the<i>Rappel libre/Rappel indicé à 16 items</i>(16-item Free and Cued Recall) in the Elderly Quebec-French Population
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
Performance on verbal memory tests is generally associated with socio-demographic variables such as age, sex, and education level. Performance also varies between different cultural groups. The present study aimed to establish normative data for the Rappel libre/Rappel indicé à 16 items (16-item Free and Cued Recall; RL/RI-16), a French adaptation of the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (Buschke, 1984 Buschke, H. (1984). Cued recall in amnesia. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology , 6 , 433–440.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Grober, Buschke, Crystal, Bang, & Dresner, 1988 Grober, E. , Buschke, H. , Crystal, H. , Bang, S. , & Dresner, R. (1988). Screening for dementia by memory testing. Neurology , 38 , 900–903.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). The sample consisted of 566 healthy French-speaking older adults (50–88 years old) from the province of Quebec, Canada. Normative data for the RL/RI-16 were derived from 80% of the total sample (normative sample) and cross-validated using the remaining participants (20%; validation sample). The effects of participants’ age, sex, and education level were assessed on different indices of memory performance. Results indicated that these variables were independently associated with performance. Normative data are presented as regression equations with standard deviations (symmetric distributions) and percentiles (asymmetric distributions).
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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