Describing Disability among High and Low Income Status Older Adults in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence, types, and severity of disabilities, as well as the medical conditions that may have caused disabilities among non-institutionalized older adults by high and low income. Disabled individuals aged 55 years and older were identified from the 1986 and 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Surveys. The overall unweighted sample sizes for each survey were 132, 337 in 1986 and 91, 355 in 1991. Approximately 40% of senior men and women reported having at least one disability, with women just slightly more likely than men to report being disabled. Almost twice as many senior women had low income compared with senior men. Mobility and agility disabilities were the most common types of disabilities reported by older adults. Arthritis/rheumatism was the medical condition most often reported as the primary cause of a disability among women. Men most often reported diseases of the ear and mastoid processes, with differences reported by low and high income respondents. Among 55-64 year olds, low income respondents were generally less likely to be categorized as mildly disabled and more likely to be categorized as severely disabled compared with high income respondents. In an effort to postpone or prevent disabilities in an ever-growing older population, public health initiatives are required to educate older adults about medical conditions and impairments that often lead to disability, particularly among low income seniors.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".