Social determinants of older adults’ awareness of community support services in Hamilton, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community support services (CSSs) have been developed in Canada and other Western nations to enable persons coping with health or social issues to continue to live in the community. This study addresses the extent to which awareness of CSSs is structured by the social determinants of health. In a telephone interview conducted in February-March 2006, 1152 community-dwelling older adults (response rate 12.4%) from Hamilton, Ontario, Canada were made to read a series of four vignettes and were asked whether they were able to identify a CSS they may turn to in that situation. Across the four vignettes, 40% of participants did name a CSS as a possible source of assistance. Logistic regression was used to determine factors related to awareness of CSSs. Respondents most likely to have awareness of CSS include the middle-aged and higher-income groups. Being knowledgeable about where to look for information about CSSs, having social support and being a member of a club or voluntary organisations are also significant predictors of awareness of CSSs. Study results suggest that efforts be made to improve the level of awareness and access to CSSs among older adults by targeting their social networks as well as their health and social care providers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".