MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324895873 · doi:10.2190/29wh-tyyf-j6c3-4a2v

Korean Beliefs about Everyday Memory and Aging for Self and Others

2001· article· en· W2324895873 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Aging and Human Development · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive psychologyEveryday lifeSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies in the West have demonstrated that more everyday memory problems are expected for typical older adults than for typical young adults. In order to examine memory beliefs about aging in Asia, we conducted a study in Korea which parallels that of Ryan and Kwong See (1993). We used the three self-efficacy scales of the Metamemory in Adulthood instrument (Dixon & Hultsch, 1983) to determine whether age changes are anticipated for oneself as well as for typical adults. Young adults (N = 468; mean age = 21.0 years) rated the memory of either typical adults (aged 25, 45, or 65 years) or themselves at one of these ages. As in Ryan and Kwong See (1993), anticipation of decline was obtained on two of the three self-efficacy scales (i.e., capacity and change). In addition, beliefs about everyday memory decline (i.e., capacity and locus) were weaker for the self than for typical others. Hence, support was obtained for negative stereotypes about memory and aging in Korea as well as a self-protection bias indicating stronger anticipation of age-related decline among others.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.323 · 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