Comparação de aspectos cognitivos, classe social e escolaridade entre idosos praticantes e não praticantes de canto coral
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este estudo objetivou comparar aspectos cognitivos, classe social e escolaridade entre grupos de idosos praticantes e não praticantes de canto coral. Participaram 96 idosos, alocados em três grupos, sendo o Grupo Canto Coral e dois grupos controle. Foram utilizados os instrumentos social-demográfico, classificação económica e o Teste de Avaliação Cognitiva Montreal (MoCA). Os idosos praticantes de canto coral apresentaram médias significaticamente mais altas do que o Grupo Controle II no instrumento cognitivo e escores mais altos nos aspectos - visual espacial, nomeação e linguagem, em relação aos dois grupos controle. Na comparação foram identificadas diferenças significativas entre os grupos. Consideramos que a prática do canto coral pode ser uma ferramenta para manutenção dos aspectos cognitivos e a qualidade de vida das pessoas idosas. Os fatores escolaridade e classe social exercem influência sobre o processo de envelhecimento, sendo importante o incentivo de atividades para as classes sociais menos favoráveis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".