MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041756843 · doi:10.1111/jnp.12219

Temporal contiguity and ageing: The role of memory organization in cognitive decline

2020· article· en· W3041756843 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuropsychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsContiguityPsychologyRecallCognitionEpisodic memoryCognitive psychologyCognitive declineDevelopmental psychologyDementiaComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The temporal contiguity effect is the tendency to form associations between items presented in nearby study positions. In the present study, we explored whether temporal contiguity predicted conversion to cognitively unimpaired-declining (CUD) status from a baseline of unimpaired older adults. Data from 419 participants were drawn from the Wisconsin Registry of Alzheimer's Prevention (WRAP) data set and analysed with binary logistic regressions. Temporal contiguity was calculated using the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test. Other predictors included age, years of education, sex, APOE-ε4 status, and other measures of memory recall. Lower temporal contiguity predicted conversion to CUD after accounting for covariates. These findings support the hypothesis that temporal organization in memory is related to cognitive decline and suggest that temporal contiguity may be used for studies of early detection.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.313 · 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