Time perspective and positivity effects in Alzheimer’s disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested whether time perspective, a central tenant of socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 2006), moderates positivity effects in emotional memory. To provide measures of time perspective, young (YA; M = 22.48 years), young-old (YO; M = 67.56 years), old-old adults (OO; M = 80.24 years), and participants with moderate severity Alzheimer's disease (PAD; M = 84.28 years) completed a line task and reported subjective age. As expected, YA, YO, and OO reported successively more constrained future time perspectives. PAD showed distortion in time perspective, envisioning a future comparable with the YO, although closer matched in chronological age to OO adults. To evince positivity effects, participants were oriented to pairs of emotional images and were then tested for memory (recall and recognition) of the images. Recall and recognition memory for the images indicated an age-related advantage for positive over negative material (positivity effects). Time perspective, however, did not moderate these age effects. In memory performance, PAD were more comparable with OO adults with whom they shared a similar chronological age, rather than YO adults, who had a corresponding time perspective. These results suggest that age correlates that are shared by PAD and OO, such as reduced processing resources, rather than time perspective, may drive the age associated positivity effects. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".