MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256362077 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14649417.v1

Prospection and goals in health aging

2021· preprint· en· W4256362077 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

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProspectionPsychologyCognitionCognitive psychologyAffect (linguistics)Episodic memoryAction (physics)Prospective memoryResource (disambiguation)Developmental psychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The focus of this dissertation is on future prospection and goals in healthy aging. More broadly, this dissertation is contextualized within a particular theoretical framework that proposes that some of the cognitive decline associated with aging reflects adaptive changes in motivation and resource allocation (Hess, 2014). We used prospection as the cognitive domain within which to explore these motivational changes. In particular, we looked at a subtype of prospection known as episodic future thinking, which is concerned with how individuals imagine future scenarios, and what effects this might have on behaviour. Whereas the first experiment took up questions about motivational influences on the nature and bounds of future thinking deficits in older adults, the second experiment tested hypotheses about the adaptive function of future thinking. Specifically, episodic future thinking is often presumed to be adaptive for planning and successful action execution. Using prospective memory as a platform, we tested the idea that episodic future thinking can facilitate goal achievement, specifically in older adults. In the first experiment, a cue-word paradigm, with words chosen to reflect age-relevant goal domains, was used to prompt the imagination of future scenarios. The results from the first experiment suggest that contrary to predictions, goal activation does not affect level of episodic detail in future thinking. However, phenomenological characteristics were modulated, with younger adults showing more sensitivity than older adults. In the second experiment, participants employed different cognitive strategies – one of which included future thinking – in a gold standard test of prospective memory. The results from the second experiment failed to find episodic future thinking a helpful strategy and did not replicate previous work demonstrating a beneficial effect of another commonly used strategy, implementation intentions, which was used for comparison. Nonetheless, secondary analyses suggest that individual differences in strategy preference may be critical to consider before ruling out the utility of episodic future thinking. The results from these experiments contribute to a growing literature on motivation-cognition interactions across the lifespan, and suggest promising future directions regarding research into motivation, prospection, and healthy 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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Functions and MemoryFrench-language works237,207