Older Adults in Lifelong Learning: Participation and Successful Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the relationship between the participation of older adult learners in educational activities and successful aging. In partnership with seniors’ organizations, focus-group interviews were conducted on seniors’ involvement in learning and their perceptions of its influence on successful aging. Successful aging is defined in terms of health, life satisfaction and happiness, and physical and cognitive functioning (Menec, 2003). The study was exploratory, but the results suggest that participation in educational activities has positive effects on successful aging and potentially contributes to both physical and psychological well-being. Connections are also made to activity-theory studies (Menec, 2003), lifespan theory (Baltes, 1997; Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995), and adult education studies on older adults (AARP Survey on Lifelong Learning, 2000; Thompson & Foth, 2002; Withnall, 2002). The authors conclude by suggesting a framework for thinking about older adults’ participation in learning activities and successful aging.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".