Comparação de aspectos cognitivos, classe social e escolaridade entre idosos praticantes e não praticantes de canto coral
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
This study aimed to compare cognitive aspects, social class, and education between groups of elderly practitioners and non-practitioners of choral singing. Ninety-six elderly people participated, divided into three groups, the Choral Singing Group and two control groups. Social-demographic instruments, economic classification, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (MoCA) were used. The elderly practitioners of choral singing had significantly higher means than the Control Group II in the cognitive instrument and higher scores in the aspects - visual, spatial, naming and language, in relation to the two control groups. In the comparison, significant differences were identified between the groups. We consider that the practice of choral singing can be a tool to maintain the cognitive aspects and the quality of life of the elderly. The factors of education and social class influence the aging process, and it is important to encourage activities for less favorable social classes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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