MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169597051 · doi:10.1093/geronb/60.2.p102

Age-Related Differences in Multiple-Object Tracking

2005· article· en· W2169597051 on OpenAlexafffund
Lana M. Trick, Tahlia Perl, Naina Sethi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series B · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTracking (education)Task (project management)Object (grammar)PsychologyTrack (disk drive)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceVideo trackingComputer visionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple-object tracking is the ability to attend (keep track of) the positions of multiple target items as they move among other items. The performance of young and older adults (M = 19 and 73 years old, respectively) was compared in two versions of a tracking task in which participants were required to monitor the positions of 1-4 moving targets in a field of 10 moving items. All participants were capable of tracking more than 1 item at once, but on average older participants tracked around 3 items at once whereas young adults tracked 4. Results suggest that there are age differences in the ability to either track or report positions of moving items. All participants reported positions of 1-4 targets in a field of 10 items with 100% accuracy when items were static.

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)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations67
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series BSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207