Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goal: The goal of the study is to find out whether increasing age is related to the level of spatial orientation disorder. The study summarizes a current knowledge about spatial orientation, both from the point of view of neurophysiology and aging, and its investigation. We research and compare two different age groups with the aid of three tests. The issue of physiological aging that potentialyl causes a disorder of spatial orientation is discussed in the experimental part of the thesis. Hypothesis: Increasing age affects spatial perception. Methods: We used Montreal cognitive test to select mentally healthy participants, and divided them into two different age groups. The group A is composed of 10 people aged from 75 to 85, their average age is 77 years. 10 people aged from 18 to 25 fall into the group B, their average age is 23 years. These particular groups were tested by Triangulation test and so-called "follow the route" test. Results: The complex of apllied tests confirmed the difference between group A and group B. There is a connection between physiological aging and lowered capability of spatial navigation. Conclusion: The results prove a change of spatial orientation due to physiological aging. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".