MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300893083 · doi:10.26443/msurj.v4i1.72

Culture and the Aging Brain

2009· article· en· W4300893083 on OpenAlexaff
Bhairavi Balram

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Science Undergraduate Research Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCategorization, perception, and language
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive agingCognitionBrain agingPsychologyCognitive declineContext (archaeology)Cognitive psychologyAging brainCognitive neuroscienceNeuroscienceDevelopmental psychologyCognitive scienceDementiaBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex


 
 
 
 Research in the cognitive neuroscience of aging has revealed several significant changes that alter the functioning of the brain over an individual’s lifetime. Particularly, some of these discoveries have contributed to our understanding of age-related degenerative diseases and cognitive decline. Most of these studies have, however, been conducted in Western (North American and Western European) populations, casting doubt on the universality of these findings. Cross-cultural investigations allow for the distinction between changes in the brain that are a consequence of aging and those changes that are due to the impact of life experiences. Research suggests that different cultures place emphasis on distinct aspects of information and use different strategies for processing this information (Nisbett and Masuda, 2003). Therefore, performing cognitive studies taking into account cultural context may provide an effective avenue for differentiating between age-related neural changes that persist across cultures and those that are driven by culture specific life experiences.
 
 
 

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.372 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Science Undergraduate Research JournalSame topicCategorization, perception, and languageFrench-language works237,207