Cognitive-load of activities for Māori and non-Māori: a New Zealand consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: To estimate the cognitive-load of self-reported physical and cognitive activities by New Zealand’s (NZ) indigenous population (Māori) and non‑Māori from the Life and Living in Advanced Age‑Cohort Study New Zealand (LiLACS NZ). Methods: Three-round panel Delphi exercise in NZ involving six panellists across an expert rater group and a peer-rater agroup of Māori and non‑Māori respectively, via web-based and face‑to‑face discussion. Results: In Round i (pre-Delphi exercise) the investigator group, gathered and categorised data from LiLACS NZ and developed a 9-point Likert-scale to rate the cognitive-load. Round ii panellists each rated the cognitive‑load of each activity. If a priori specified criteria were not met, then round iii involved a face‑to‑face meeting to discuss and re-rate activities on which consensus was lacking. Conclusions: Māori reached consensus in round ii while non‑Māori did so in round iii. Panellists provided a formal consensus-based cognitive-load rating for 181 activities separately for Māori and non‑Māori. Keywords: three to five keywords: Delphi Technique, physical activity, ageing, cognitive activity
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".