Promoting Safety and Aging in Place in Tacoma and the Surrounding Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of older adults would like to “age in place” by continuing to live in their homes as long as possible. Barriers that can prevent aging in place include normal age-related changes and falls, which can result in injury requiring hospitalization or long-term care. However, fall risk can be reduced with home modifications that increase the safety and accessibility of the home. Unfortunately, these modifications can be costly and often are paid out of pocket. Older adults do not always have the financial means to pay for home modifications, even when they could increase the safety within their home. The purpose of this project was to provide an educational manual for staff at Rebuilding Together South Sound (RTSS), an organization that provides free home modifications and repairs to individuals in need within the local community. The manual serves as a tool by providing staff information from safety evaluations completed on homes previously served by RTSS. This manual includes sections on age-related changes, common safety hazards discovered in the home, and recommendations for adapting the home to promote aging in place. Brochures are included to be distributed to homeowners and expand their knowledge on the ability to age in place through improved home safety. RTSS staff found the manual to be an effective resource for information to better serve clientele and to identify ways to improve the safety within their homes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".