))
52. Example of a well-written abstract (other than the one by Nobel Laureates)
Fetch error
Hmmm there seems to be a problem fetching this series right now.
Last successful fetch was on October 30, 2025 15:07 (
What now? This series will be checked again in the next day. If you believe it should be working, please verify the publisher's feed link below is valid and includes actual episode links. You can contact support to request the feed be immediately fetched.
Manage episode 480976844 series 3493940
コンテンツは Dr. Synaptologica によって提供されます。エピソード、グラフィック、ポッドキャストの説明を含むすべてのポッドキャスト コンテンツは、Dr. Synaptologica またはそのポッドキャスト プラットフォーム パートナーによって直接アップロードされ、提供されます。誰かがあなたの著作物をあなたの許可なく使用していると思われる場合は、ここで概説されているプロセスに従うことができますhttps://ja.player.fm/legal。
Let’s talk about an excellent abstract that I read this week. It was so well written, and I was so excited to read it that I wanted to talk about it with you today. The beauty of it is that the first 3 structural components guide us through the authors’ intention and question very clearly. But there was also a little twist to the structure: we will talk about it, too.
The abstract that we talked about today was from the following paper:
- “A meta-analysis of technology use and cognitive aging”
- Benge & Scullin, Nature Human Behaviour, 2025
- “Online ahead of print” (thus, no volume number or page numbers) as of the date of this episode upload.
- PubMed link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40229575/
- Journal link: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02159-9
We can read its abstract on either of the above websites.
Unfortunately, the other parts of the paper are subscription-based. So, they are accessible, if you or your institutions have a subscription to the journal.
This episode = mini-series: reading-32.
(My email is active. But my website is under construction. Please wait for a while. Thank you for the patience!)
61 つのエピソード
シェア
