The study on the participation of leisure activities and the cognitive function of the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the status of cognitive function and leisure activity participation among the elderly in urban communities, and to explore the relationship between cognitive activities and leisure activities. Methods Using the General Demographic Data Questionnaire,the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale and Leisure Activities Questionnaire, 528 elderly people were investigated. Results The cognitive function were (25.65 ± 2.58), (25.76 ± 2.48)points in elderly with recreation and intelligence activities respectively, and (25.21 ± 2.53), (25.58 ± 2.60)points in elderly without recreation and intelligence activities respectively, the difference was statistically significant (Z=5.56, 8.16, P 0.05). The participation of intelligence and recreation was positively correlated with cognitive function (r=0.347, 0.270, P 0.05). Conclusions Nursing staff should pay more attention to the decline of cognitive function of the elderly, so that the elderly can recognize the importance of leisure activity, improve their enthusiasm, participate in science, enrich the quality of life in later years, improve cognitive function. Key words: Aged; Leisure activity; Cognitive function
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".