Categories, diversity, and relevance of memory strategies reported by community-dwelling seniors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Memory strategies help seniors remember information that is essential for the performance of their daily activities and contribute to their independence in the context of declining memory skills. This study aimed to analyze the categories, the diversity, and relevance of memory strategies known by seniors, and to identify individual characteristics that correlated with these variables. METHODS: The sample consisted of 294 participants aged 60 and over who decided to take part in a cognitive vitality promotion program. An adapted version of the memory situation questionnaire (Troyer, 2001) was administered to identify the memory strategies that seniors would use in five daily life situations. A scoring grid, also adapted from the questionnaire's original version (Troyer, 2001), was used to quantify the relevance of the strategies that were reported by participants. RESULTS: All participants mentioned at least once that they would use a strategy from the physical category of memory strategies. Out of a possible range of 26 strategies, participants answered an average of 6.14 (SD = 1.7) different answers across the five situations. Based on expert consensus, 67.7% of the mentioned memory strategies were relevant. Diversity and relevance were significantly higher when trying to remember appointments, things to bring or phone numbers (p ≤ 0.05). The level of education, cognitive skills, and participation in leisure activities were related to diversity and relevance of reported strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Seniors know various and relevant memory strategies to perform daily activities. The advantages of integrating strategies that they already know in cognitive health promotion programs should be considered in further studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".