Social representations, ageing and memory: a holistic approach to cognitive assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper examines how contextual (conversational) aspects and socially shared meanings might affect the participants' performance on a standardised memory test using the theoretical framework of social representations. A total of 97 members of centres for older adults located in Rome, Italy participated in a screening using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test. Prior to testing, a group of volunteers had organised a performance focused on events from the distant past, stimulating intergenerational reminiscence. The participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the first case, prior to administering the test, a psychotherapist talked to each participant about the performance, focusing on ageing and stressing the neutral aspects of its social representations, such as change and time. In the second case, performance was used to concentrate on positive aspects of the social representations of ageing, namely wisdom and experience. In line with the hypothesis, focusing on positive aspects of social representations of ageing (wisdom and experience) versus their neutral aspects (change and time) has resulted in improved performance on a standardised memory test. Practitioners (psychotherapists – experts in psycho-diagnostics) who administered the tests have been involved in the co-construction of the meaning of ageing, discussing a real-life situation: the common experience of intergenerational activity that involved the participants' memories of their urban environment.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".