Cognitive Functioning and Emotional Regulation in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present correlational study was aimed at examining the relationship between cognitive functioning (CF) and emotional regulation (ER) to determine the gender differences between them. To explore these dimensions, a sample of 200 community-dwelling Older Adults (M=100, F=100) with an age range of 60+ has been selected using purposive sampling from Lahore district, Punjab. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) were used to assess both variables. The data was analyzed using SPSS version 27. The t-test results revealed that there exists gender differences in CF but not evident in ER. The correlational analysis suggested a positive correlation between CF and cognitive reappraisal(CR) and a negative correlation was found between CF and expressive suppression (ES. 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 strategy which is CR, can enhance CF 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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".