MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399046120 · doi:10.1017/s0714980824000242

The Beneficial, Formative Role of Lifetime Exposures across Cognitive Domains in Barbados Using Data from the SABE Study

2024· article· en· W4399046120 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Steffener, Joanne Nicholls, Shireen Farghal, Dylan Franklin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentCognitionGerontologyAffect (linguistics)DementiaPsychologyMental healthCognitive declineMedicinePsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study tested the hypothesis that within older Barbadian adults, sex, education, and occupation type lessen age-related cognitive decline. The analyses used a cross-sectional data set from 1325 people collected in the 2006 SABE Study (Health, Well-being, and Aging). Cognition was assessed as scores in each subdomain of the Mini-Mental State Exam. The loss of a single point in each subdomain was predicted by sex, years of education, job type, and their interactions with age. Results demonstrated that age and protective factors affect each cognitive domain differently. High education combined with mentally complex employment helped maintain cognitive performance in later life. Beneficial lifetime exposures are additive, providing combined benefits. Findings provide insight into public policy aiming to minimize the number of adults with cognitive decline and dementia in Barbados and the Caribbean.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207