COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING AND EMOTIONAL REGULATION IN OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present correlational study proposes to examine the relationship between cognitive functioning and emotional regulation; to determine the gender differences in cognitive functioning as well as in emotional regulation. To explore these dimensions sample of 200 community-dwelling Older Adults (Men=100, Women=100) with an age range of 60+ were selected using purposive sampling from Lahore district, Punjab. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) were used to assess cognitive functioning and emotional regulation respectively. The data was analyzed using SPSS version 27. The t-test results revealed the gender difference in Cognitive Functioning. Gender Differences related use of Emotion Regulation were not found. The correlational analysis suggested a positive correlation between cognitive functioning and cognitive reappraisal (r=.067), and a negative correlation was found between cognitive functioning and expressive suppression (r=-.074). The findings of the current study can be implicated in the field of Clinical Psychology to establish programs that will help improve mental well-being of aged people by exploring their emotional experiences. Effective emotional regulation may enhance cognitive function and resilience in older adults, allowing them to better navigate age-related challenges.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".