Resilience integrates concepts in aging research
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
Aging research is unparalleled in the breadth of disciplines it encompasses, from evolutionary studies examining the forces that shape aging to molecular studies uncovering the underlying mechanisms of age-related functional decline. Despite a common focus to advance our understanding of aging, these disciplines have proceeded along distinct paths with little cross-talk. We propose that the concept of resilience can bridge this gap. Resilience describes the ability of a system to respond to perturbations by returning to its original state. Although resilience has been applied in a few individual disciplines in aging research such as frailty and cognitive decline, it has not been explored as a unifying conceptual framework that is able to connect distinct research fields. We argue that because a resilience-based framework can cross broad physiological levels and time scales it can provide the missing links that connect these diverse disciplines. The resulting framework will facilitate predictive modeling and validation and influence targets and directions in research on the biology of aging.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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