MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404283736 · doi:10.15460/jlar.2024.2.2.1524

Videos to study Interactions in AGEing (VIntAGE)

2024· article· en· W4404283736 on OpenAlexafffund
Guillaume Duboisdindien, Catherine Bolly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Language and Aging Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology in Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Marie Sklodowska-Curie ActionsUniversité de ParisUniversité de RouenUniversité de LiègeMinistère de l'Enseignement Supérieur, de la Recherche, de la Science et de la Technologie
KeywordsVintageAgeingHistoryMedicineArchaeologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Videos to study Interactions in AGEing (VIntAGE) corpus aims to investigate the complex relationship between language, cognition, and aging, focusing on verbal and non-verbal pragmatic markers in older persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). This multimodal and longitudinal corpus incorporates an analysis of gestural and verbal markers in discourse, aligned with neurolinguistic models. It provides a rich dataset for analyzing how aging impacts communicative competence in individuals with MCI. The VIntAGE corpus comprises approximately 18 hours of video recordings from 36 face-to-face interviews conducted by a close acquaintance of each of the nine women, all over 75 years old. Five participants were selected for in-depth analysis due to significant changes in their cognitive status. The participants underwent a series of semi-structured interviews over 15 months. The data were processed using transcription tools (for verbal discourse) and annotation tools (for gestures) and then subjected to Principal Component Analyses to manage each individual's diverse dataset and discursive modalities. The corpus includes the annotation of 6,351 verbal pragmatic markers (VPMs) and 8,044 non-verbal pragmatic markers (NVPMs). The data reveal an average decrease in MoCA scores from 23/30 to 20/30 over one year, highlighting cognitive decline's effects on verbal and non-verbal communication.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.411 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Language and Aging ResearchSame topicEducational Technology in LearningFrench-language works237,207