Meta-analysis of aging effects in mind wandering: Methodological and sociodemographic factors.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our attention frequently shifts from ongoing tasks to internal content such that we find ourselves mind wandering (MW). Recent research has revealed that increasing age in adulthood is associated with a decrease in the frequency of MW, but the factors that contribute to this age-related effect are unclear. Thus, in the present study we conducted a meta-analysis of age differences in MW that aimed to analyze (a) the size and consistency of the age-related decrease in MW frequency, and (b) the moderating impact of methodological and sociodemographic factors. We analyzed studies comparing MW frequency in healthy younger and older groups and found a large effect in older adults. The age-related decrease in MW was more pronounced for probe compared to self-caught procedures, when task-related interfering thoughts were measured separately, when visual masks were presented, as the proportion of targets increased, and as older participants and fewer women were included in older adult groups. In discussing the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, we highlight the role of motivation and response options and provide recommendations for future research. These included emphasizing the need for open-ended methods in order to avoid bias due to MW instructions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it