Social Determinants of Cognitive Health: Studies on Physical and Social Environments and Cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Living environments profoundly influence the aging process. This symposium presents research on two main aspects of the living environment and their relationships with cognitive health. The living environment is broadly defined, including both physical and social aspects. The physical environment is the characteristics of the built environment, such as tripping hazard in the home, cleanness of the community streets, and presence of deserted buildings, etc. The social environment is the cohesiveness with other people living in the neighborhood. Living environments have multiple layers; the physical environments encompass both in-home and in-community domains, whereas the social environment can be categorized as domestic versus community cohesiveness. This symposium includes studies with investigation scopes spanning from the micro to mezzo levels. The first presentation scrutinizes the buffering effect of marital relationships, as a form of domestic social environments, on cognition among older adults with vision and hearing impairments. Using the NHATS dataset, the second presentation examines social isolation as a potential mediator for the association between physical, social environments and global cognitive functioning. The third presentation evaluates the impact of living environments on cognition among Canadian older adults with multimorbidity. The last presentation examines how the physical environment affects sleep quality and thus influences older adults’ cognition. All four presentations are closely linked to the overarching theme of evaluating the environmental impact on cognition and provide possible explanations mediating the association observed. This symposium contributes to advancing gerontological knowledge by offering new perspectives on the social determinants of cognitive health.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".