MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2469292896 · doi:10.1037/pag0000051

“Older is always better”: Age-related differences in vocabulary scores across 16 years.

2015· article· en· W2469292896 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

VenuePsychology and Aging · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyVocabularyCognitionYoung adultCognitive agingCross-sectional studyAge groupsAgeingDevelopmental psychologyGerontologyDemographyAudiologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-sectional studies of cognitive aging compare age groups at 1 time point. It is unclear from such studies whether age-related cognitive differences remain stable across time. We present a cross-sectional investigation of vocabulary scores of 2,000 younger and older adults collected across 16 years, using the same laboratory and protocol. We found a steady decrease with year of testing and an advantage for older adults. An additive relation between age group and year of testing implied that age-related differences in vocabulary are independent of changes over time, suggesting that younger and older adults are similarly affected by changes in word usage.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient 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 score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0060.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.320 · 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