A pilot study of the cognitive, health, and social outcomes for older adults participating in a school-based intergenerational engagement intervention.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age-related declines in cognitive functioning may to some extent be reduced by a lifestyle marked by social and intellectual activities (Schooler et al., 1999). According to the engagement model that originated in epidemiological studies on lifestyle, people who engage in complex work, social networks (Bennett & Gaines, 2010) or generally stay busy may benefit from enhanced cognition and health (Lövdén et al., 2005). Thus, older individuals involved in intergenerational programmes, which typically involve interacting with younger people in ways that increase cognitive, social, and physical activity, could potentially experience a range of biopsychosocial benefits. These could include improvements in health and wellbeing, such as increased physical activity, cognitive ability, mood, and mental health (Carlson et al., 2008; Chung, 2009; de Souza & Grundy, 2007; Tan et al., 2006). This project aimed to investigate the impacts of a moderate level of intergenerational engagement (i.e. 8 hrs/week) on the health and wellbeing of older people. We also investigated the role of intervention duration, specifically, whether 3 and/or 6 months of engagement can bring significant benefits. References Bennett, T. & Gaines, J. (2010). Believing what you hear: The impact of aging stereotypes upon the old. Educational Gerontology, 6, 435–445. Carlson, M. C., Saczynski, J. S., Rebok, G. W., Seeman, T., Glass, T. A., McGill, S., ... & Fried, L. P. (2008). Exploring the effects of an “everyday” activity program on executive function and memory in older adults: Experience Corps®. The Gerontologist, 48(6), 793-801. Chung, J.C. (2009). An intergenerational reminiscence programme for older adults with early dementia and youth volunteers: values and challenges. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 23(2), 259-64. De Souza, E. M. & Grundy, E. (2007). Intergenerational interaction, social capital and health: Results from a randomised controlled trial in Brazil. Social Science & Medicine 65(7), 1397-1409. Lövdén, M., Bergman, L., Adolfsson, R., Lindenberger, U., & Nilsson, L.-G. (2005). Studying individual aging in an interindividual context: Typical paths of age-related, dementia-related, and mortality-related cognitive development in old age. Psychology and Aging, 20, 303–316. Schooler, C., Mulatu, M. S., & Oates, G. (1999). The continuing effects of substantively complex work on the intellectual functioning of older workers. Psychology and Aging, 14, 483-506. Tan, E. J., Xue, Q. L., Li, T., Carlson, M. C., & Fried, L. P. (2006). Volunteering: a physical activity intervention for older adults—the experience Corps® program in Baltimore. Journal of Urban Health, 83(5), 954-969.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".