Au fur et à mesure que nous vieillissons, se sentir relié aux autres + but dans la vie = meilleure santé cérébrale: Infographique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Global Council on Brain Health (GCBH) is an independent collaborative of scientists, health professionals, scholars, and policy experts from around the world working in areas of brain health related to human cognition.The GCBH focuses on brain health relating to people's ability to think and reason as they age, including aspects of memory, perception, and judgment.This is sometimes also called cognitive health, cognitive function or mental fitness.The GCBH is convened by AARP with support from Age UK to offer the best possible advice about what adults age 50 and older can do to maintain and improve their brain health.GCBH members come together to discuss specific lifestyle issue areas that may impact people's brain health as they age with the goal of providing evidence-based recommendations for people to consider incorporating into their lives.We know that many people across the globe are interested in learning what they can do to maintain their brain health as they age.An abundance of sources are now available for people to find information, but it can be difficult to know what the weight of current science says when new and sometimes conflicting studies are reported.The GCBH makes its recommendations to help people know what practical steps they can take to foster better brain health and feel confident that it is based on reliable and scientifically credible information.We aim to be a trustworthy source of information basing recommendations on current evidence supplemented by a consensus of experts from a broad array of disciplines and perspectives.We intend to create a set of resources offering practical advice to the public, health care providers, and policy makers seeking to make and promote informed choices relating to brain 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 | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.178 | 0.069 |
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".