Association of prospective memory and social wellbeing in midlife to old age in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to remember future actions (prospective memory) is an important determinant of daily functioning in older adults. While social wellbeing is associated with better cognitive function generally, it is unknown how social wellbeing affects, and is affected by, prospective memory. Using a two-wave longitudinal design, we investigated the relationship between prospective memory and social wellbeing over 3 years. Data come from the first two waves of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging ( n = 23,609, age: 45–86), collected between 2011–2018. Event-based and time-based prospective memory were measured using a standardized laboratory task, and social wellbeing was operationalized as self-reported social support and social participation. We used latent change score modeling to evaluate longitudinal associations between prospective memory and social wellbeing. There was a positive bidirectional relationship with higher baseline social support predicting better prospective memory, and vice-versa. However, no similar relationship was observed for social participation. Time-based and event-based prospective memory did not differ in their association with social wellbeing. Social support may buffer stress and promote a richer, mentally stimulating environment, thereby improving prospective memory. Conversely, better prospective memory may increase social support, for example, by reducing the risk of memory lapses interfering with supportive relationships (e.g., forgetting appointments).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it