MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416969094 · doi:10.21810/cujcs.v8i1.7205

The Aging Mind at Work: A Framework for Age-Differentiated Cognitive Processing

2025· article· W4416969094 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Undergraduate Journal of Cognitive Science · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionCognitive agingAffect (linguistics)Social cognitive theorySocial cognitionInformation processingCognitive resource theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As global populations age, workplaces are increasingly shaped by older adults whose cognitive profiles differ in systematic ways from their younger counterparts. This paper reviews age-related changes in cognition through both deficit-based and adaptation-focused lenses, examining how shifts in memory, attention, inhibitory control, and fluid versus crystallized intelligence affect workplace-relevant domains such as social cognition, creativity, and decision-making. To integrate these findings, it introduces the Age-Differentiated Processing Model, a stage-based framework outlining how older and younger adults differ in how they access, delete, integrate, retrieve, and act on information. The model emphasizes differences in how cognitive resources are allocated and applied across processing stages, shaped by contextual demands and motivational priorities. A real-world workplace scenario illustrates how these differences unfold in practice. Directions for future research, including the need for more ecologically valid and lifespan-inclusive studies, are discussed in the final section.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Undergraduate Journal of Cognitive ScienceSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207