Social Influences and Eating Behavior in Later Life: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food intake is often poor within the older population and many are at nutritional risk. Food intake is complex, as there are multiple individual, social, and environmental determinants that may interact and change over time. Social isolation has long been recognized as a key factor predicting nutrition risk in this population. However, the mechanisms by which social relationships influence diet among older adults remain poorly understood. The purpose of this review is two-fold: (1 Drewnowski A , Evans WJ . Nutrition, physical activity, and quality of life in older adults: summary . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001 ; 56 ( Spec No 2 ): 89 – 94 .[Crossref], [PubMed] , [Google Scholar]) to identify and, where possible, clarify the social concepts used in older adult nutrition research over the past two decades, specifically, the concepts of social integration, social support, companionship and commensality; and (2 Wellman NS . Prevention, prevention, prevention: nutrition for successful aging . J Am Diet Assoc. 2007 ; 107 ( 5 ): 741 – 3 .[Crossref], [PubMed] , [Google Scholar]) to provide a review and summary of the empirical literature on social factors and diet among cognitively well older adults living in the community. Finally, challenges to studying social concepts in older adult nutrition and areas of future research will be discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".