MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2309175266

Cognitive reserve in rural and urban older Canadians: evidence using a cognitive screening measure

2011· article· en· W2309175266 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Edward Helmes, Pascal W. M. Van Gerven

Bibliographic record

VenueResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionGerontologyAffect (linguistics)Rural areaPsychologyDemographyRural communityUrban communityCognitive reserveAgeingAnalysis of varianceMedicineCognitive impairmentEnvironmental healthSociologyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies have shown conflicting results as to whether or not increased years of education provide a buffer against cognitive changes associated with normal ageing. Several factors have been shown to affect the likelihood of any given set of data demonstrating the existence of an effect of cognitive reserve, including gender, level of cognitive functioning, and the cognitive function being measured. Here we compare scores on the Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS; Teng & Chui, 1987) for rural and urban older Canadians from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA). The original community sample of 10,263 people 65 years of age and over was tested three times at five-year intervals. Mean age at time 1 was 76.5 years (SD = 7.52). Analysis using linear mixed model analysis of variance on 3MS screening scores showed significant main effects for time, education, age, and rural-urban differences with significant interactions for the nonlinear effect for time and both education and the rural-urban difference. More education seemed to have an effect in this large, representative community sample, with those living in small rural communities scoring lower at the first two test occasions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University)Same topicCognitive Science and MappingFrench-language works237,207