THE IMPACT OF HEALTH STATUS ON THE EVERYDAY PROBLEM SOLVING OF OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive decline in older adults has implications for the ability to function in daily life.Thus, there has been increasing interest in measures of everyday problem solving (EPS), which require traditional cognitive abilities as well as the appropriate application of these abilities to solving problems relevant to naturalistic, everyday situations.We examined the differential contribution of general illness burden and two subsets (non-vascular, and vascular illness burden) as well as two aspects of self-rated health (SRH; mental and physical) to individual differences in EPS performance in a sample of 102 communitydwelling older adults.Illness burden was conceptualized as the total number of each type of illness, and SRH was assessed with two scales from the Short Form 36 (SF-36).The vascular, but not non-vascular, subset of general illness burden was associated with poorer EPS performance; however, this relationship was largely accounted for by demographic variables (i.e., age, education, and gender).Lower self-rated physical functioning (SRPF), but not self-rated mental health (SRMH) predicted poorer EPS performance after demographic variables were taken into consideration.Self-rated physical functioning may be of particular importance as a predictor of EPS performance in the expanding older adult population in North America.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".