MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314929370 · doi:10.1017/s071498081600009x

Cognitive Performance, Driving Behavior, and Attitudes over Time in Older Adults

2016· article· fr· W2314929370 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Rapoport, Paweena Sukhawathanakul, Gary Naglie, Holly Tuokko, Anita Myers, Alexander M. Crizzle, Nicol Korner‐Bitensky, Brenda Vrkljan, Michel Bédard, Michelle M. Porter, Barbara Mazer, Malcolm Man‐Son‐Hing, Shawn Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaLakehead UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of WaterlooCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationBaycrest HospitalUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of TorontoOttawa HospitalUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ Nous avons théorisé que les changements au fil du temps dans les performances cognitives sont associés à des changements dans les perceptions, les attitudes et les comportements d’auto-régulation des personnes âgées qui conduisent. Les adultes âgés en bonne santé ( n = 928) ont subi les évaluations cognitives au début avec deux suivis annuels subséquents, et ils ont rempli des formulaires avec des échelles qui mesurent leurs perceptions, les attitudes et les comportements de conduite. L’analyse multivariée montre des petites relations, mais statistiquement significatives, entre les tests cognitifs et les mesures qui ont été auto-déclarée, les plus grandes amplitudes entre les scores étant sur les sentiers B tâche cognitive (secondes), la perception de la capacité de conduire (β = 0,32), et l’évasion des situations de conduite (β = 0,55) (p <0,05). Selon cette analyse exploratoire, le ralentissement cognitif et le dysfonctionnement exécutif semblent être associés aux capacités à conduire perçues d'être modestement inférieurs et à l’évitement accru des situations de conduite au fil du temps.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207