MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770391189 · doi:10.18192/olbiwp.v8i0.2120

Is the bilingual brain better equipped for aging? Studies on neural and cognitive reserve in elderly bilinguals

2017· article· en· W2770391189 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueOLBI Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscience of multilingualismCognitive reserveCognitionPsychologyNeuroimagingCognitive psychologyCognitive declineFocus (optics)NeuroscienceCognitive impairmentMedicineDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last decade, the study of the cognitive advantages stemming from bilingualism has become a major focus of research in neuroscience. The evidence suggests that bilingualism may contribute to building cognitive reserve but controversies still remain. This paper provides evidence of the so-called “bilingual advantage” by focusing on neural and cognitive reserve. Specifically, we shall discuss (a) the rationale underlying the idea that bilingualism might provide a cognitive advantage particularly in agingand (b) the evidence for two types of reserve associated with bilingualism, namely neural and cognitive reserve. In particular, we will focus on evidence from recent functional neuroimaging studies on elderly bilinguals carried out by our research group and 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)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.289 · 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